
Class E__ 



PRESENTED BY 



Studies of the Old South 



By the Present Day Students of a 
Virginia College 





A Collection of Essays to Which Have Been Awarded 

During the Past Ten Years 

The Dr. George W. Bagby Prize 

of Hampden Sidney College 

For the Best Essay Written by an Undergraduate Upon 

Ante-Bellum Conditions in the South 



Studies of the Old South 



By the Present Day Students of a 
Virginia College 




A Collection of Essays to Which Have Been Awarded 

During the Past Ten Years 

The Dr. George W. Bagby Prize 

of Hampden Sidney College 

For the Best Essay Written by an Undergraduate Upon 

Ante-Bellum Conditions in the South 



Fzok 



VIRGINIA. 



The roses nowhere bloom so white 

As in Virginia; 
The sunshine nowhere shines so bright 

As in Virginia; 
The birds sing nowhere quite so sweet 

And nowhere hearts so lightly beat, 
For Heaven and Earth both seem to meet 

Down in Virginia. 

There is nowhere a land so fair 

As in Virginia; 
So full of song, so free of care, 

As in Virginia; 
And I believe that happy land 

The Lord's prepared for mortal man, 
Is built exactly on the plan 

Of Old Virginia. 

The days are never quite so long 

As in Virginia; 
Nor quite as filled with happy song, 

As in Virginia; 
And when my time has come to die, 

Just take me back and let me lie 
Close where the James goes rolling by 

Down in Virginia. 






PREFACE. 

37 Wall Street, New York City. 

The most fortunate day of my life was April 12, 1898, 
when I was married to Martha, the daughter of the late 
Dr. George W. Bagby, for many years the State Librarian 
of Virginia. From that event, so happy for me, I have 
taken a peculiar interest in her father's writings. Dr. Bag- 
by's delightful essays relating chiefly to the Old Dominion 
of the time before the War between the States, breathe the 
very spirit of their period. It has been said that no one 
could comprehend the problems of Ireland who had not 
read with love and comprehension Mangan's beautiful 
poem "The Dark Bosaleen." It is equally true that no one 
can know and feel the true significance of the older Vir- 
ginia civilization whose heart is not thrilled with sympathy 
and comprehension on turning the pages of "The Old Vir- 
ginia Gentleman," "My Uncle Flatback's Plantation" and 
the other studies of Dr. Bagby. Thomas Nelson Page, 
Armistead C. Gordon and the other Virginia writers of 
recent days freely acknowledge that Dr. Bagby is facile 
princeps in his field. 

The period of which he wrote and its civilization are 
rapidly growing dim in the memories of men. Soon they 
will be gone — like an unsubstantial pageant faded. 

And so it is peculiarly suitable and important that the 
young men of the present time, whose memories still recall 
the impressions of those distant days, as gathered from 
stories by their fathers and mothers, by old nurses and 
servants and other conservers of tradition, should so far 
as possible record those impressions before they too have 
passed away. It is for this purpose that the printing of 
these essays has been undertaken. Although some of them 



merit preservation by reason of their intrinsic merit, 
they are put forth rather for the purpose of preserving 
the thoughts and views of the younger generation of 
Southerners, and particularly of Virginians, concerning 
the past of their State and of their section. From this 
point of view the papers possess historical value. 

Dated, October, 1916. 

Geo. Gordon Battle. 



THE INFLUENCE OF THE EXTENSIVE GROWTH 

OF TOBACCO IN VIRGINIA IN THE 

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 



THE INFLUENCE OF THE EXTENSIVE GROWTH 

OF TOBACCO IN VIRGINIA IN THE 

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 

By W. W. Grover— 1906. 

Early Virginia has a history as original and as distinc- 
tively her own as has Assyria or Babylon or Eome. Vir- 
ginia is the first born of many sister states in a newly 
discovered and unsubdued world, and she has had to solve, 
during the first few centuries of her existence, problems 
that were new and entirely her own. 

This unprecedented character of her problems sprang, 
primarily, from the temperament of the people who made 
up the colony, and secondarily, from the condition of the 
soil which they tilled and the climate in which they lived. 
Many of her people came here because they were averse to 
Worship as their brothers in England were accustomed to 
worship, and were sent here by companies whose purpose 
it was to establish a garden in this fertile soil of the 
Occident that would supply the markets of England more 
cheaply than they could be supplied by European markets. 

While the first of these purposes was to some extent 
gained and the people were, in the main, allowed to wor- 
ship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, 
the second purpose was a complete failure, due to the dis- 
covery of the Tobacco plant, which was found in extensive 
use among the North American Indians. Instead of using 
the fertile soil they found here for raising those products 
so much desired and sought after by the people of the home 
country, the settlers began the cultivation of tobacco. 
Probably no other plant has ever been discovered whose 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

use became so popular, and for which there was such a 
growing demand in so short a time. 

Virginia was from the first the leading tobacco market 
in the world. Her wealth has been gained by it, and her 
social and economic relations have been greatly influenced 
by its production. Even her religious affairs were affected 
by it as is shown by the "Parsons Cause" which brought 
Patrick Henry to light. Some of these various influences 
were beneficial, while others were baneful. All the people 
were living in rural districts where agriculture was their 
only productive enterprise, and tobacco was their staple 
product. 

Living as the people were, in a vast wilderness with 
no manufactories of artificial fertilizers, there was no 
scientific means for keeping the land in that high state of 
fertility in which they found it, and which was so neces- 
sary for the production of tobacco. The strength of the 
soil was used up so rapidly that, after a few years, the 
farmers found it necessary to clear away more land. 
Tobacco would flourish best only in the virgin soil. 

For this reason, the forest, as vast as it was and as 
valuable as it would have become, fell victim to the deadly 
axe of the woodman. The mighty giants of the forest, that 
God had planted by His winds, and blessed by the sunshine 
and showers of many summers, and made hardy by the 
snows and storms of as many winters drooped their proud 
heads and fell before man as the destroying angel. Vast 
fields of the virgin soil were robbed of their natural vest- 
ments, and laid bare for the tobacco grower to take away 
their fertility while he shipped their products to foreign 
lands. New clearings were continually taking the place of 
these plots as they became unfertile and useless. Like an 
aggravated sore, these plots became more and more dis- 
agreeable to look at until hill and valley, in many places, 
were bare and rugged, and they continued to spread them- 
selves, slowly, perhaps, but surely, until the whole country 
was left in this ugly condition. 



INFLUENCE OP GROWTH OF TOBACCO IN VIRGINIA 

This system resulted in each farmer's owning a large 
plantation that was poorly cultivated, because his more un- 
productive fields were abandoned to grow up in coarse 
grass or tall weeds or very probably in shrubs. The abund- 
ance of land and lumber very naturally created a prevalent 
spirit of wastefulness and neglect. It has been said that 
the whole country, even where it was most thickly settled, 
bore the appearance of a vast wilderness, only slightly 
changed by the axe and the hoe. 

Tobacco found a ready market all over the world. 
Merchants in every port were calling for that strange 
weed that was coming from the new world across the seas. 
All goods that could not be produced on the plantation 
had to be imported from abroad. These two conditions 
brought it about that a system of barter and trade was set 
up. Traders would bring their cargoes to our shores and 
give them in exchange for our tobacco. Since tobacco 
was raised here, and only here, and since there was such 
a demand for it, this became the only product that was 
shipped to any extent. 

The people became so used to trading a certain number 
of pounds of tobacco for any article they wanted, that they 
began to use tobacco as the unit of value. After a time 
this became the only regular medium of exchange. The 
tobacco barn came to be used very much as the modern 
American uses his purse. Goods were bought with tobacco, 
preachers were paid their salaries, and the lawyers and 
doctors were paid their fees in tobacco, and even the 
Governor of the Colony requested that his salary be paid 
in tobacco. When a Virginian went to England he would 
pay for his voyage in tobacco and take along an extra 
supply in order to defray his expenses while abroad. 

So important was this crop that we find Alexander 
Brown saying in his "First Eepublic in America," "To- 
bacco was not the bane but really the preserver and sup- 
port of the Colony." 

True it is, that, as California was peopled by her gold 

3 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



mines and the West is being populated to-day by its rich 
grain lands, so Virginia, to a great extent, was populated 
because of the adaptability of her soil to the production 
of tobacco. Commissioner J. B. Kellebrew in "Tobacco 
in Tennessee" was shown that Virginia with its cultured 
and refined men and women was made possible by the 
cultivation of tobacco. The generosity and hospitality for 
which Virginians have always been noted could only be 
developed by an idle class of wealthy and cultured people 
in rural districts. The prosperous condition of the country 
encouraged many of the better classes to migrate from 
England to live here as "Virginia Gentlemen." 

The prominence of this product in the affairs of the 
people is also shown by the fact that the greater part of 
the legislation of that day was directed toward the regula- 
tion of the production and sale of tobacco. England, also, 
passed laws providing for the quality of tobacco that 
should be raised, and stating that it must be shipped only 
to England, in English ships, manned by English seamen. 

Taxes were also laid on tobacco when it left Virginia 
as well as when it was delivered in England. These taxes, 
so aranged that all the burden lay on the planters, became 
so exorbitant that the planter, at one time, scarcely realized 
enough from a good crop to clothe his family. This condi- 
tion is one of the paramount arguments used by Bacon in 
instigating the rebellion of 1676. 

Although land was plentiful and fertile in the early 
years of Virginia, the plant could not be cultivated without 
a vast expenditure of time and labor. Even before the crop 
could be planted, the forest had to be cut down and the 
debris burned away. Therefore one of the leading prob- 
lems of the day was the labor problem. This was a diffi- 
cult problem to solve. At first the labor was done princi- 
pally by a system of indented white servants, over whom 
the planters, as their masters, had complete control for a 
stated period of about ten years. Finally there came a 
day when it seemed that the problem would be imme- 



INFLUENCE OF GROWTH OF TOBACCO IN VIRGINIA 

diately solved in a most happy manner. Like the poisonous 
plant that bears a beautiful flower as the germ of a deadly 
fruit, this problem seemed to be opening up with a beauti- 
ful solution, when the Dutch ship appeared in the harbor 
with a cargo of African Savages, who the people thought 
could be readily trained to cut down the forest and culti- 
vate the fields, with little expenditure to the planter. These 
people, they thought, would be totally under the planter's 
control for life and they could then live in luxury, com- 
manding their servants to do whatever they would have 
them do, while, at the same time, they thought they would 
be uplifting the savage from that state of barbarism from 
which he had been taken. 

I need only mention this when you, as you look back 
on history from the pinnacle of the present, will imme- 
diately recognize the evil fruit this pleasant flower has 
borne. You see the negro problem in its many variations, 
and in all its immensity as time has revealed it to us. This 
problem has occupied the minds of the brainiest and sturd- 
iest of our men for a number of years, and it yet stands 
to-day unsolved and apparently as difficult of a satisfac- 
tory solution as from the very first. The Civil War has 
come and gone. Men have seen the errors of the slavery 
system and the lives of many of Virginia's bravest and 
noblest sons have been lost in this civil strife. Homesteads 
have been trampled under the foot of the warrier ; families, 
bound together by ties of love have been torn asunder; 
and hearts have been left broken and bleeding. Yet we 
can not reach a solution. 

That the growth of tobacco was the real cause that lay 
at the very foundation of all this can be readily shown. 
The peculiarity of tobacco in requiring the virgin soil for 
its production caused the large plantation that covered 
hundreds of acres ; and the large plantation with the vast 
amount of labor necessary for the preparation of the land 
and cultivation of the crop created a great need for cheap 
and unskilled labor. Hence the negro was imported. Had 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

it not been for these conditions, the negro would never 
have secured a firm foot-hold in Virginia, for it was only 
this low grade of labor that he was fit for. No doubt there 
would have been a few negroes imported, but these would 
have been of little consequence, for there is no other crop 
the people would have raised that would have needed so 
much of this class of labor. From the abundance of land 
and the cheapness of labor, a system of very extensive 
cultivation resulted, in which the farmer of to-day is 
driven to cultivate a large tract of poor land at little profit. 
If the early planters had cleared less land and cultivated 
that more intensively, the farmer of to-day would have 
inherited smaller, but far more fertile farms from which 
he could produce as much, and probably more, with much 
less expense than he now has to bear. 

The forests, too, in this day when so much lumber of a 
superior quality is needed, and is so difficult to obtain, 
would be of incalculable wealth to the country. The 
naturalist tells us that where there are few trees there is 
less rainfall than where the forests are well developed, and 
that the uneven distribution of rain in some portions of 
Virginia, at particular seasons, is due, in a large degree, 
to the scarcity of forest trees. 

Many of the large private buildings, including factories 
and warehouses, have been built by money made from 
tobacco. Also a large part of the revenue that has gone 
into improvements and in costly public buildings has come 
from the tax on tobacco. 

From this we are led to look into the origin and situa- 
tion of the internal cities of the state. In "Henning's 
Statutes" we find that a law was passed providing for the 
establishment of a town in ealh county where the planters 
of that county could conveniently bring their tobacco. 
This accounts for the establishment of many of the towns 
and county seats of the state. The larger towns, however, 
grew up where there were superior shipping facilities along 
with easy accessibility from tobacco growing districts. 



INFLUENCE OF GROWTH OF TOBACCO IN VIRGINIA 

Richmond, Petersburg, Lynchburg and Danville are all in 
great tobacco sections, and we find that at first almost all 
their trade was in tobacco. The large manufacturing con- 
cerns in some of these cities to-day came after the cities 
were established, but even a great part of that manufactur- 
ing is now on tobacco. 

The results of the cultivation of tobacco in Virginia in 
the Seventeenth Century have been so completely woven 
into the nexus of the affairs of the state that to overrate 
its influence would be difficult. These relations are so 
complicated and varied that I have been able to deal only 
with the most important phases of the subject in this paper. 



SLAVERY AND ITS INFLUENCES IN 
THE OLD SOUTH. 

By D. A. Haller— 1908. 

The purpose of this article is neither to excuse slavery 
nor to condemn every form of the institution which existed 
in our Southland before the war, but rather to discuss 
different opinions on the subject held by men of the time, 
and to give their reasons for such opinions, attempting at 
the same time to point out any fallacies which may have 
existed in the arguments of either side. No particular 
section of the South is to be considered as being discussed 
more than another, the attempt throughout being to get 
in a condensed form an unbiased description of slavery 
from historical and sociological standpoints, the informa- 
tion to be gotten, as has been said, from the written fig- 
ments of men who lived in the slavery era. 

The foundation of slavery in the United States was laid 
probably in 1620, when a Dutch trading vessel landed a 
cargo of African negroes on our shores. The colonists, at 
the very outset, objected to the slaves being brought over, 
but as they continued to be forced upon them, they accepted 
them as one of the decrees of cruel, unrelenting fate, and 
decided to make the best of it. A cruel fate it was indeed, 
especially for their descendants. These negroes were simply 
a very low race of beings that were unloaded upon the 
settlers by unscrupulous traders and the duty of raising 
them to a higher plane of living now devolved upon the 
vainly protesting whites. It will be noticed that in the 
works of nearly all abolitionists this phase of the question 
has, however, been omitted. Could the question not be 
looked upon as a long term contract between the races and 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

forced upon each party, one side to become elevated in- 
tellectually, the other to receive for their services as 
teachers or instructors the products of the physical labors 
of the blacks minus the amount necessary to keep them well 
cared for? It seems that this was probably the real effect 
of the compact which undoubtedly did good and harm to 
both parties. 

It was seen later on that abolition would be better for 
both parties involved, but then it was too late to effect 
this easily. When the value of the slaves had come to be 
over |1,200,000,000 the plantation owners could not let 
the "contract" end, for it would mean financial ruin. They 
had expended their time in making capable and intelligent 
workmen of the negroes and now that their time for some 
return for their labor was at hand it was not at all 
peculiar that they wished to overlook the view of the in- 
alienable, unalterable rights of all men to life and liberty 
as brought forth by the abolitionist ; neither was it strange 
that as they viewed the question, they saw on the one side 
wealth, happiness (for both parties, as a general rule, were 
in comfortable positions) and freedom from all worry over 
changed conditions. On the other hand, they saw ruin, 
absolute and final, trouble between the races and neces- 
sarily a temporal retrogression in the land which they had 
done so much to improve and which they held so dear as 
the home of their patriotic fathers, who had fought under 
Washington, and which they cherished as the future home 
of their offspring. 

This way of looking at the question was, however, not 
a universal one among the men of the South. Men like 
Olay of Kentucky, Oalhoun of South Carolina, and Lee 
of Virginia, saw that slavery, so far as making one man 
and his descendants forever dependent upon another for 
his daily bread and even in some instances for his life, 
was not right and could never be made so. The way to 
remedy it was, however, not at hand, and as these men 
were not superhuman, they could see none and rather 

10 



SLA VERT AND ITS INFLUENCES IN THE OLD SOUTH 

spent their time in other matters defending to the best of 
their respective abilities, the claims of their native states 
when called upon to do so, and trying to improve the lot 
of those unfortunates held in slavery. 

The people of the South had not been ignorant of the 
results in other countries where abolition had taken place, 
and as these results were far from the best, we see another 
very real cause for their not putting abolition to the test 
in their own land. The very first year after the complete 
emancipation of slaves in Jamaica the exports of sugar 
from that island fell off over 8,000 hogsheads. The aboli- 
tionists attempted to explain this by declaring that the 
size of the hogsheads had been changed and by saying that 
a free negro ate more sugar than a slave. Of the first 
statement there is no proof and the evidence to be had 
concerning it seems rather to point in the opposite direc- 
tion. The second statement is nothing but an absurd sup- 
position which contains no truth and which was simply a 
product of the imagination. These "explanations," as you 
will readily see, did little to encourage the Southerners to 
free their negroes. Then, too, what moral lesson could be 
gotten from men who, even if they did free their slaves, on 
the very next day forced the poor Chinese, at the mouths 
of cannon, to buy their death dealing opium. A noted 
abolitionist attempted to show that in countries where the 
slaves had been freed, even though the production was 
smaller than before, the producers gained more because 
the cost of production was lowered. This, too, was proved 
to be false and the Southerner still saw ruin written on the 
wall when he thought of freeing his slaves. 

Probably one of the reasons why the South paid little 
attention to the cries of the abolitionists was because they 
were inconsistent. One of them, in a work on slavery, says : 
"The |1,200,000,000 at which the South values its slaves 
is money extorted without right, and does not represent 
honest gain." A few years later the same man published 
a book in which he says: "It is right to apply force to 

11 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

compel those to work who will not labor from rational 
motives." Does the comparison of two such statements in- 
spire the readers with great confidence in the honesty and 
consistency of the author? No! We see the Southern 
slaveholder with the perplexing problem still before him 
and he has ability enough to see in the "reasonings" of his 
Northern brethren, who have no slaves to lose, a desire 
merely ^to experiment, to satisfy the whim, and not, as in 
a few cases, a desire to see the slaves emancipated simply 
because it is morally right. 

Another reason why the men of the South did not listen 
to the arguments of the abolitionists was to quote one of 
the abolitionists themselves, because "they used fierce, 
bitter, and abusive language about any and every slave- 
holder." 

A common supposition of the abolitionists was that 
slavery had degraded its subjects into brutes. The native 
African could not be degraded. Of the 50,000,000, inhabi- 
tants of Africa probably more than four-fifths were slaves. 
The master had over these the power of life and death, 
and, in fact, his slaves were often fattened, killed and 
eaten just as we do cattle. The religion of the masters was 
often worse than were their morals. Indeed, if such crea- 
tures ever reached the true level of simple brutality at all, 
is it not evident that they must have been elevated and not 
degraded to it? The truth is the abolitionist made the 
slave a brute or a martyr, just as it happened to suit the 
exigency of his argument. 

We see then the general effect of slavery on the peace 
of mind of the Southerner was not at all soothing. It 
was a problem which had to be solved, yet there seemed to 
be no solution. If the slave holder freed his slaves he 
faced ruin. If he kept them he was continually abused by 
outsiders and probably troubled by his own conscience. 
He was even to see his own political rights fade away if he 
kept his slaves for "many people wouldn't vote with a 
nigger-owner." If no one would vote with him he could 

12 



SLAVERY AND ITS INFLUENCES IN THE OLD SOUTH 

not possibly win and then all laws would, if possible, be 
made to his disadvantage and to the advantage of other 
sections of the Union. 

This trouble was not the only one either which was 
coming upon the Southern slave-holders. The South was 
falling behind the progressive North. There were no large 
factories south of Mason and Dixon's line and the slave 
by his wasteful ways, was soon to ruin the soil for agricul- 
tural purposes. The negroes were not skilled sufficiently 
to work in a mine or a factory, and they must needs have 
more time and labor expended on them before they would 
ne fit for either of these duties. Then, when they were 
educated to perform these duties, what guarantee had the 
men of the South that no law was to be passed freeing 
them and thus letting their educators lose all the labor ex- 
pended upon them? Then, too, if no law of the kind were 
passed, would they still be troubled by "talk" if they made 
the negro work for them and thus pay back the value of 
the efforts expended in teaching him? Slavery then began 
to produce a feeling of uneasiness all over the South. The 
slaves had been elevated from cannibals to their present 
status, but what was to be done next? They were ruining 
the land for future time, the paying good returns then. 
They were holding back the progress of the country, for 
they were not sufficiently skilled for any duties but those 
of day laborers of the lowest sort. Yet, calm unchangeable 
history held forth its true example of the fearful results 
of emancipation. The slaves could not be held with profit, 
and they could not be freed without loss. Truly the men 
who had profited by the slave trade had made their cus- 
tomers pay fancy prices for their goods. 

Then, too, the negro was a cause of keeping free 
laborers out of the South. No respectable laborer would 
work by the side of a negro slave and of course naturally 
preferred the less arduous work in Northern factories to 
the labor in the hot cotton fields of the South for which the 
negro was peculiarly suited. Thus not only by their being 

13 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

undesired as fellow workmen but by their hindering the 
building of factories in the South, the negroes kept out the 
most desirable class of workmen. This kept down the 
white population of the South, which, becoming relatively 
to that of the North smaller and smaller made the South's 
influence in governmental circles less felt each year. There 
was probably a way to make the negro count as much as a 
white man in voting — this was by getting his condition 
raised by educating him so that he could understand the 
principles of law. Then the question arises could this be 
done more quickly with the negro as a free man than as a 
slave? It is not at all probable, for the slaves came into 
closer contact with their masters, were better cared for 
and taught than they could have been otherwise. Then we 
can find no reason here why the Southerners should take 
the leap in the dark and risk their all. 

A noted abolitionist seemed to think that the negro 
should be freed and allowed to follow the bent of his own 
will — if he wanted to elevate himself, let him do so, if not, 
then let him work two hours per day and live on in his 
childish fashion, taking no care for the morrow and caring 
not a mite whether he ate cornbread or cake, whether he 
relapsed into idolatry or lived and taught his children to 
live as Christians. This "solution" — as the author was 
pleased to term it — was undoubtedly absurd. In fact, no 
one except the originator ever considered it seriously for 
a moment. Yet there were thousands of equally foolish 
theories on the subject, and the proposers of each and every 
theory loudly berated the luckless slaveholder for not 
trying his scheme. Peace of mind must certainly have been 
an unknown quantity to the men who studied the question 
with a view to its speedy solution. 

It was quite natural, too, that the brightest minds 
should be occupied with this, the most difficult question of 
the day. The natural result of this state of affairs is that 
the literary development of the South was checked, for a 
man must be bright indeed who can give time to two such 

14 



SLAVERY AND ITS INFLUENCES IN THE OLD SOUTH 

diverse subjects and have his thoughts amount to anything 
in either line. 

Now, in the conclusion of our study, which we must 
call it for lack of a more appropriate name, what have we 
found? Slavery was exerting the greatest possible force 
against all improvement in the South — in fact, it was slow- 
ly but surely ruining it. In all probability we must con- 
clude that slavery was elevating the negroes who were for 
the most part contentedly living and learning by the kind 
teachings of their masters. Granting, however, that the 
slaves were not helped by their masters, that they were 
ill-treated and that they were gradually retrograding or, 
on the other hand, affirming that they were gradually im- 
proving in all respects — in either case, looking at the side 
of the slaveholders themselves, can we say truthfully that 
holding slaves is not the greatest misfortune which can be- 
fall a race of people, that the slaveholders were not the 
ones who had suffered and were to suffer from its effects, 
that it was not a blight to Southern civilization? No, this 
has been proved over and over again. The slaveholders 
and not the negroes, then, should (and probably would, if 
they had come in the right way) have hailed the attempts 
to free the negroes as helping hands held to them — the 
people in distress. 

Our feelings on the subjects must be only those of 
regret that the "contract" was ever forced upon either 
side and that it ever endured as long as it did. Its non- 
existence would have rendered unnecessary the sacrifice of 
many human lives in the great struggle which had slavery 
as its cause, it would have been unable, in this case, to 
check the literary, educational and economical advances of 
the South and probably the whole of our country would 
be at least half a century more advanced in every way. 



15 



STATES' RIGHTS. 
By L. H. Lancaster — 1909. 

In May, 1787, delegates from all the states except Rhode 
Island met in Philadelphia "for the sole and express pur- 
pose of revising the articles of confederation." It took, 
however, a very short time for the delegates to see that a 
mere revision of the old articles would not be sufficient for 
the needs of the people. So it was decided to make an 
entirely new constitution for a federal government. 

In the drawing up of the new articles the convention 
was divided into two distinct parties — one in favor of giv- 
ing the principal power to the central government; the 
other held that the states were supreme and should remain 
so. The convention finished its work and then submitted 
it to the approval of the various states. Delaware was the 
first to ratify the instrument. This she did on December 
7, 1787. North Carolina and Rhode Island, the last states 
to act in the matter, ratified the constitution on November 
21, 1789, and May 29, 1790. 

As soon as the government was established under the 
constitution the statesmen and people were divided into 
two parties on the same principles that were debated in 
the Philadelphia convention. They were the "centripetal" 
and "centrifugal" forces in government, one favoring a 
strict, the other a loose, interpretation of the constitution 
in determining the relative positions of the Federal and 
the State authority. Jefferson and Hamilton were the 
champions of the opposing parties. But even Mr. Hamil- 
ton did not dispute that the states were sovereign. 

No serious questions arose, nor was any belief, that the 
Federal government and not the states had the paramount 

17 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



authority, advocated until 1830. During this year the mo- 
mentous Hayne- Webster debate took place. These two 
men were extremists of the opposing schools. Mr. Hayne 
spoke for nullification and state-sovereignty, showing that 
the constitution was a compact and the Union a partner- 
ship voluntarily entered into. Mr. Webster with still 
greater enthusiasm and force advocated the view of the 
indissoluble character of the Union ; that the constitution 
was not a compact, and that the states were subordinate. 

Probably the chief argument advanced by Mr. Webster 
in this and other speeches, and by other holders of those 
views, was that the words of the preamble, "We, the people 
of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
union * * *," could mean nothing else but that the con- 
stitution was a creation of the people as a whole, and for 
that reason the people as a whole or the central govern- 
ment was the power to which our allegiance was due. 
This interpretation was foreseen and feared by a few 
great leaders at the time of the adoption of the constitu- 
tion. Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, in a letter to 
Richard Henry Lee about the constitution, said, "I 
stumble at the threshold." Patrick Henry in the Virginia 
Convention strongly attacked this phraseology: "That 
this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; 
and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very 
striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentle- 
men (its authors) ; but, sir, give me leave to demand, what 
right had they to say, 'We, the people'? My political 
curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public 
welfare, leads me to ask, who authorized them to speak the 
language of, 'We, the people,' instead of we, the states? 
States are the characteristics and the soul of a confedera- 
tion. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it 
must be one great consolidated national government of the 
people of all the states." 

Another point raised by the champions of the national 
government was, in the words of Webster : 

18 



STATES' RIGHTS 

"That the constitution of the United States is not a 
league, Confederacy or compact, between the people of the 
several states in their sovereign capacities; but a govern- 
ment proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and 
creating direct relations between itself and individuals. 

"That no state authority has power to dissolve these 
relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; 
and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as seces- 
sion without revolution. 

"But I do agree that it is founded on consent or agree- 
ment * * * and means no more by it than voluntary 
consent or agreement. The constitution, sir, is not a con- 
tract, but the result of a contract * * *. The people 
have agreed to make a constitution, but, when made, that 
constitution becomes what its name imports. It is no 
longer a mere agreement." 

The definition given of the constitution is "the funda- 
mental law" or "the supreme law of the state." It was 
argued that the word "compact" occurs but once in the 
constitution and that when the states are forbidden to 
make any compact. A government was established. What 
is a government? Is it a "league," a "compact"? Mr. 
Webster said that this government came into being and 
sovereignty when the constitution was ratified by the par- 
ties to the contract and that the result is entirely different 
from the cause. 

All of the debaters on these questions clearly imply in 
their statements that, if the constitution were a compact, 
and if the states acceded to it, the sovereignty of the states 
and the right to secede would be unquestionable. 

The opening the preample has been considered the 
stronghold of the centralizing party. The argument is 
fully answered by Madison's reply to Patrick Henry : 

"Who are parties to it (the constitution) ? The people, 
but not the people as composing one great body; but the 
people as composing thirteen sovereignties : were it, as the 
gentleman (Mr. Henry) asserts, a consolidated govern- 

19 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



ment, the assent of a majority of the people would be suffi- 
cient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted 
it already, the remaining states would be bound by the act 
of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it: 
were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now 
binding on the people of this state, without having had the 
privilege of deliberating upon it ; but, sir, no state is bound 
by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the 
states adopt it, it will be then government established by 
thirteen states of America, not through the intervention of 
the legislatures, but by the people at large." 

It might also be interesting to note how that part of 
the preamble was written and the views held by the framers 
of the constitution about it : 

The preamble of the original draught of the constitution 
started, "We, the people of the states of New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts," etc., naming each of the thirteen colonies. 
After waiting for more than a year, when it seemed very 
doubtful whether all the colonies would join the compact, 
a change was made. It was decided to establish the gov- 
ernment under the constitution when nine colonies had 
ratified it. But there was no power which could possibly 
tell how many or which states would accede to it. So the 
"committee on style" had to omit the list of states and 
put in its place the indefinite "people of the United States." 
And, of course, they meant by that the people, of the in- 
dividual states which should ratify the constitution. 

Jefferson Davis in his "Rise and Fall of the Confederate 
Government" says : "If, then, we can conceive, and admit 
for a moment, the possibility that, when the constitution 
was under consideration, the people of the United States 
were politically 'one people' — a collective unit — two deduc- 
tions are clearly inevitable: In the first place, each geo- 
graphical division of this great community would have 
been entitled to vote according to its relative population ; 
and, in the second, the expressed will of the legal majority 
would have been binding upon the whole. A denial of the 

20 



STATES* RIGHTS 



first proposition would be a denial of common justice and 
equal rights; a denial of the second would be to destroy 
all government and establish mere anarchy. 

"Now, neither of these principles was practiced or pro- 
posed or even imagined in the case of the action of the 
people of the United States (if they were one political 
community) upon the proposed constitution. On the con- 
trary, seventy thousand people in the State of Delaware 
had precisely the same weight — one vote — in its ratifica- 
tion, as seven hundred thousand (and more) in Virginia, 
or four hundred thousand in Pennsylvania. Would not 
this have been an intolerable grievance and wrong — would 
no protest have been uttered against it — if these had been 
fractional parts of one community of people?" 

The Senate stands as the lasting monument to the 
sovereignty and individuality of the states. No legislation 
is enacted, nor is a President elected, but that we are re- 
minded of this truth. There have been three men who had 
either a majority or plurality of the votes of the people for 
President, but their opponents were elected to that office. 
It would have been entirely possible for the constitution 
to have been rejected by the majority of votes cast, and still 
to have been adopted by the states. Can we, then, say that 
the constitution was adopted by the people "in the aggre- 
gate"? 

In answer to the argument that the constitution is not 
a compact, and to show that the states retained their 
sovereignty, we can bring forward the following truths : 

The constitution was ratified by each state separately 
and of its own accord. We have seen that two states did 
not enter the compact until more than a year after the 
inauguration of Washington. And it was called a com- 
pact by its framers, and the statesmen of the time. Jeffer- 
son in the "Kentucky Resolutions" speaks in these clear 
and strong terms : "Resolved, that the several states com- 
posing the United States of America are not united on the 
principle of unlimited submission to their general govern- 

21 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

ment; but that by compact under the style and title of a 
constitution for the United States and of amendments 
thereto, they constitute a general government for special 
purposes, delegating to that government certain definite 
powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass 
of right to their own self-government ; and that whensoever 
the general government assumes undelegated powers, its 
acts were unauthoritative, void and of no force; tnat to 
this compact each state acceded as a state ; * * * that 
the government created by this compact was not made the 
exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers dele- 
gated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, 
not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but tnat, 
as in all cases of compact among parties having no common 
judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, 
as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of re- 
dress." 

Madison, one of the greatest thinkers of his day, calls 
the constitution "a compact between the states in their 
highest sovereign capacity." The Supreme Court, which 
was established to be the final judge of all cases arising 
under the constitution, gave this opinion through its Chief 
Justice, John Jay : "The constitution of the United States 
is a compact." 

It is a surprising thing to see that Webster, the cham- 
pion of the national idea and one of the most vehement 
opponents of the Southern policy, changed his opinion and 
publicly declared the constitution a compact and admitted 
the right to secede. He says in a speech made in 1839, 
"How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties 
enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can dis- 
regard any provision and expect, nevertheless, the other 
to observe the rest !" And, "I have hesitated to say, and I 
repeat, that if the Northern states refuse, wilfully and 
deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the constitu- 
tion which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and 
Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer 

22 



STATES' RIGHTS 

be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be 
broken on one side and still bind the other side." 

We must also remember that the authors of the consti- 
tution were mere delegates, voting by states, and whose 
action had no binding force. The last article of the con- 
stitution is this: "The ratification of the conventions of 
nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this 
constitution between the states so ratifying same." It would 
seem that the language of this single article ought to be 
enough to convince one that the constitution is simply a 
compact. Notice the word "between!" What else can it 
mean but an agreement made by independent parties, not 
"over" them? No "superior people" would have thus 
spoken. 

If the government under the constitution is not a com- 
pact, what is it? Every one of the states so understood it 
and two, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, one repre- 
sented by Mr. Webster, the other his native state, express- 
ly called it so in their ratification of the constitution. 

Then we find that some of the states in their articles 
of the ratification even laid down conditions under which 
they would join the Union. South Carolina accompanied 
her ordinance of ratification with these words : "This con- 
vention doth also declare that no section or paragraph of 
the said constitution warrants a construction that the 
states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished 
by them and vested in the general government of the 
Union." New Hampshire expressed herself in almost the 
same terms. Virginia came out still stronger in her state- 
ment, "That the powers granted under the constitution, 
being derived from the people of the United States, may be 
resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to 
their injury or oppression, andthat every powernot granted 
thereby remains with them and at their will," etc. New 
York's declaration contained the same opinions and condi- 
tions as that of Virginia. It is hard to see how a man could 

23 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



possibly ignore or twist these statements that are so ex- 
plicitly made in the terms of ratification by these states. 

Part of these declarations — that part which says that 
the states retained the powers not delegated and the only 
part over which it was thought a question could ever be 
raised — was soon added as a tenth amendment. It seemed 
superfluous to place the other part of those declarations! — 
the portion which speaks of reasoning their old positions 
if they thought best — in the constitution. 

For the constitution was universally considered a com- 
pact and the conditions of ratification were so clear. Hear 
Ehode Island express herself : 

"That Congress shall guarantee to each state its sov- 
ereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, 
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this constitution 
expressly delegated to the United States." 

When a group of states, on equal footing, voluntarily, 
and laying down conditions under which they join the 
Union, unite in order to protect themselves and to promote 
the general welfare of the whole, the Union thus formed is 
nothing else but a compact. 

After we see that the constitution is simply a compact 
there are certain rights and privileges that come from the 
very nature of it as a compact, and they are unquestioned. 
The chief one of these rights is that by which a compact 
ceases to be binding on any party to it, if another party 
has broken it. Then, unless a compact contain a provision 
that it shall last for a certain length of time, it may be 
dissolved at will by any member of it. Of course, the 
reasons for so doing should be seriously considered and 
the party that withdraws may be held responsible for the 
damage caused by a wanton exercise of this power. 

Now, if sovereign states accede to a compact or unite 
themselves in a league for common benefits, it is true that, 
unless they expressly delegate that sovereignty to the crea- 
ture they have made, each one retains that sovereignty and 
in no way can they be deprived of it. The tenth amendment 

24 



STATES' RIGHTS 

declares that "The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
people." So, to say that the general government is sov- 
ereign, because there is nowhere stated in the constitution 
that the states retain their sovereignty, is directly opposed 
to the plain statement and sentiment of that constitution. 

It would have been considered treason during the early 
days of the Union to say that the states were not sovereign. 
And all public utterances on that subject distinctly affirm 
the sovereignty and independence of the states. Vattel 
writes in his chapter "Of Nations of Sovereign States" : 
"Several sovereign and independent states may unite them- 
selves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each 
in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form 
together a federal republic : the deliberations in common 
will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, 
though they may, in certain respects, put some restraints 
on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. 
A person does not cease to be free and independent when 
he is obliged to fulfill the engagements into which he has 
very willingly entered." 

Alexander Hamilton says in the "Federalist" : "Do 
they (the fundamental principles of the confederation) 
require that, in the establishment of the constitution, the 
states should be regarded as distinct and independent sov- 
ereigns? They are so regarded by the constitution pro- 
posed." 

De Tocqueville, one of the most learned of the foreign 
writers on our government and an unprejudiced observer, 
makes this simple statement : "However strong a govern- 
ment may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences 
of a principle which it has once admitted as the founda- 
tion of its constitution. The Union was formed by the 
voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting 
together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have 
they been reduced to the condition of one and the same 

25 



STUDIES OK THE OLD SOUTH 



people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name 
from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right 
of doing so, and the Federal government would have no 
means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or 
by right." 

Therefore, with the constitution itself, with the state- 
ments and writings of its framers, its ratifiers, and its 
interpreters before us, we must accord with the view that 
our loved Southland was constitutionally free to do as 
she thought best to protect herself and to maintain the 
principles for which both sections poured out their blood 
in the War of Independence. 



20 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION. 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION. 
By James M. Cecil — 1910. 

Contrary to the nearly universal opinion, the American 
Civil War of 1860-65 did not originate in the dispute over 
the legal status of the negro. Slavery was merely an in- 
cident to the war, and not the prime factor in its origin. 
The causa causans of the titanic struggle is traceable to 
the disagreement upon the nature of the Federal Govern- 
ment ; the different constructions placed upon the constitu- 
tion by the two sections of the Union, and the question 
where the ultimate sovereign power or paramount author- 
ity resides. It is undeniable that the motives that actuated 
the Southern States in the dissolution of the Union were 
not merely the overthrow and destruction of the existing 
government, but the preservation of the very principles 
upon which the Federal Government was founded. The 
passage of time modifies passion and permits a more im- 
partial view to be taken of a disputed subject, especially 
where the parties engaged are instigated by unswerving 
moral convictions and blinded by sectional jealousies. 
Snap judgments passed at the time of action are often 
reversed by succeeding generations. So we, of a later 
century, are emboldened to undertake the consideration of 
Civil War themes, and may presume to arrive at a less em- 
bittered conclusion. 

In the year 1860, the loyal patriots of the South, the 
very men who had been so zealous of the Union and so un- 
selfish in their devotion to it, found themselves face to face 
with a most perplexing problem. Either they must submit 
to the palpable infringement of their political rights and 
the consequent obliteration of their sovereignty as states; 

29 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



or to perpetuate the fundamental principles of this Union 
by the withdrawal from it and the establishment of an- 
other, a step which they were loath to take. Until the day 
of Webster, no one had dared to question the indefeasible 
right of secession from a government which all regarded as 
the creature of the states. There is no better expression of 
the sentiment of the Southern people than the words of 
Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy: "No 
alternative remained except to seek the security out of the 
Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The 
hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was 
to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find pros- 
perity and peace out of it." 

Beyond a doubt, the unprejudiced reader will admit 
that if we can prove the assertion that the Union is a com- 
pact entered into by sovereign and independent states, then 
the actions of the Southern States were conformable with 
the spirit of this Federal Government. To attain this end, 
we must first establish the fact that these States were in- 
dependent before the first union ; that this sovereignty was 
not surrendered by them in the articles of Confederation 
or in this present constitution; and that this freedom is 
still extant. Because no one can dispute the maxim of 
law which states that sovereignty cannot pass by implica- 
tion, but must be expressly relinquished. If we can show 
that the sovereignty of the States was not expressly given 
up in either of the above-named documents, then our point 
will be gained. Then to demonstrate that the States, and 
not the Supreme Court, are the final judges of violations 
of this compact, will render our argument for secession 
conclusive. 

Going back to the very birth of the Union, let us con- 
sider first the instrument of their existence. Justice Story, 
of the Supreme Bench, in common with many other radical 
nationalists, argued that this Declaration of Independence 
asserted the independence of the people of the United 
Colonies as a whole, as one "nation" ; and consequently the 

30 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION 

States were never separate and distinct sovereignties. But 
their premises being erroneous, their conclusions must nec- 
essarily be false. What can they say to the wording of the 
Treaty of Peace that concluded the Revolutionary War? 
This document reads: "His Brittanic Majesty recognizes 
the said United States, viz. : New Hampshire, Massachu- 
setts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, etc., 
etc., to be free, sovereign and independent states." What 
construction can they put upon the resolutions of the State 
Conventions authorizing the Declaration? "We, the dele- 
gates of Maryland (for example), * * * have thought 
it just and necessary to empower our Deputies in Con- 
gress to join with a majority of the United Colonies in de- 
claring them free and independent States, ^n framing 
such further confederation between them * * * as 
is necessary for the preservation of their liberties" The 
resolutions of the other states are literally synonymous, 
and additional citations would be repetition. They all co- 
incide in the emphatic avowal of their separate and dis- 
tinct independence. But if further illustration be neces- 
sary to establish the original sovereignty of the States, we 
have only to consult the old treaties with France and 
Sweden which recognize plainly the thirteen States acting 
in unity for this specific purpose. "We, the people of the 
States of Massachusetts Bay, New York, etc.," enumerat- 
ing the whole thirteen States. So much for the contention 
that the States were never separate and independent sov- 
ereignties. 

It now devolves upon us to show that the States did not 
relinquish this independence when they signed the articles 
of Confederation ; a task which is not at all onerous, since 
Webster and most authorities concede this. At the time 
when the Union was in embryo, and the articles under con- 
struction, each state was equally quick to resent any real 
or implied infringement of their rights as sovereignties. 
Every measure proposed was carefully scanned, and any 
insinuation tending towards the curtailment of the States' 

31 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

power was immediately rejected. The delegates to the 
Convention took particular pains to style the league as 
"The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union be- 
tween the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay," 
etc. That one word "between" proves our point, as a league 
or compact can only be formed between separate and in- 
dependent parties. To make plain to all how clear in their 
minds was the sovereignty of these political units, Article 
II was carefully inserted. "Each State retains its sover- 
eignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jur- 
isdiction and right which is not by this confederation ex- 
pressly delegated to the United States, in Congress as- 
sembled." 

Since it is almost self-evident that the States retained 
the paramount authority under the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, let us next observe their condition after tney acceded 
to the Constitution of 1787. The next step in our argu- 
ment is to prove that they did not expressly relinquish 
their sovereignty in the new Union. In the first place, the 
old league had proven, after a fair test, inadequate in cer- 
tain particulars to a strong Union. It is a comparatively 
simple matter to prove that the sole object in drawing up 
a new compact was to remedy the deficiencies in the old 
articles, and not the origination of a new Union upon 
radically different principles; not to alter the entire nature 
of the existing government, but the strengthening of the 
old. The resolutions of several State legislatures, consent- 
ing to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, leave not a 
shadow of a doubt as to the prime object of that as- 
semblage. As the wording of all these State resolutions 
was practically the same, we shall quote only that of 
Georgia. The General Assembly of Georgia "ordained" 
the appointment of certain commissioners, specified by 
name, who were "authorized as deputies from this State, 
to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized 
by other States, to assemble in convention in Philadelphia, 
and to join with them in devising and discussing all such 

32 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION 

alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to 
render the Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies 
of the Union." The "Union" then in existence, it is clear, 
and not a new system of government devised by this con- 
vention. 

What the delegates themselves conceived to be the sole 
purpose of their assemblage may be correctly gathered 
from surviving records of the convention. When the con- 
vention had become deadlocked over the Virginia plan of 
Union, Mr. Bedford, of Delaware, arose and said: "That 
all the States at present are equally Sovereign and Inde- 
pendent, has been asserted from every quarter of this 
House. Our deliberations here are a confirmation of that 
position. * * * Let us do then what is in our power — 
amend and enlarge the Confederation, but not alter the 
Federal system." And there was little, if any, dispute over 
this statement There can be no more decisive proof of 
our position than the actual words of the men that wrote 
the constitution. Madison's speech in the Virginia Con- 
vention expresses the same belief : "Who are parties to it? 
(The constitution.) The people, but not the people as 
composing one great body; but the people as composing 
thirteen sovereignties." In speaking of the several states 
under the new constitution, Tucker, of Virginia, in 1803, 
writes in an edition of Blackstone: "Each is still a per- 
fect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still cap- 
able, should occasion require, to resume the exercise of 
its functions, as such, to the most unlimited extent." 

It is entirely within the power of brilliant minds to put 
fallacious constructions on a sentence, to interpret articles 
in a thousand ways different from their original intent, to 
distort the meaning of this word and that, in fact, to alter 
beyond recognition the true conception of a clause ; but the 
fact still remains that there have been preserved to us the 
ideas and designs of the men who called this Union into 
existence — testimony which is indisputable. While there 
was not much need for the extreme "States' rights" men to 

33 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



agitate a convention in which their opinions were almost 
unanimously accepted, yet there did crop out some slight 
opposition. A measure was even introduced on the floor 
of the convention, advocating the practical abolition of 
state authority, and the fusion of the thirteen states into 
one nation. But this proposition met with crushing de- 
feat, and immediately the clause was inserted in the con- 
stitution, peremptorily restricting the Federal Govern- 
ment to those powers expressly delegated to it by the 
States. To allay the ever-vigilant people, Madison was 
forced to state in the convention, that "A breach of any 
one article by any one party leaves all other parties at 
liberty to consider the whole convention dissolved." The 
guardians of States' rights were so distrustful of these 
new articles of agreement that Alexander Hamilton felt 
called upon to say, that "The States can never lose their 
powers until the whole people of America are robbed of 
their liberties." To aptly state the sole and true aim of the 
new constitution, we must use the words of Thomas Jeffer- 
son : "To make us one nation to foreign affairs," he wrote, 
"and keep us distinct in domestic ones, gives the outline of 
the proper division of power between the general and par- 
ticular governments." 

We must admit the learning and wisdom of Chief Jus- 
tice Marshall of the Supreme Court, the foremost jurist 
and interpreter of the constitution of the age. In render- 
ing a decision of the Supreme Court, he said: "It has 
been said that they (the States) were sovereign, were com- 
pletely independent, and connected with each other only by 
a league. This is true !" If we still doubt that the makers 
of the nation regarded the Union as a compact, let us ex- 
amine what Mr. Curtis says in his "History of the Con- 
stitution of the United States." He writes : "The parties 
to this instrument (the constitution) were free, sovereign, 
political communities — each possessing within itself all 
the powers of Legislation and Government over its own 
citizens which any political society can possess." When 

34 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION 

such staunch loose-construetionists, as Marshall and Ham- 
ilton, are obliged to acknowledge the sovereignty of the 
States, surely we are justified in accepting their reluctant 
confession as the universal belief of the day. 

The relative position of the States to the Federal Gov- 
ernment is stated in unmistakable language in the resolu- 
tions of Virginia and Massachusetts in 1798, when the 
Alien and Sedition laws were passed. The State of Vir- 
ginia drew up the following paper, and when it was sent 
to the other states for their approval, all were unanimous 
in their approbation: "This assemblage doth explicitly 
and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the 
Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to 
which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense 
and intention of the instrument constituting the compact, 
as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants 
enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliber- 
ate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not 
granted by the said compact, the States Who are parties 
thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose 
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining 
within their respective limits the authorities, rights and 
liberties appertaining to them." And this avowal of the 
States came in 1798 — at a time when one still looked ask- 
ance at the constitution. It is nothing less than the plain 
statement of the nature of our Federal Government by the 
very men who created it. 

The terms in which the several sovereign states ratified 
the constitution is hardly known by the general public. 
They are not aware that Massachusetts called the Union 
"a solemn compact" in her ratification, and that two other 
states reserved the right of secession. Here is an extract 
from the Virginia ratification : "We, the delegates of the 
people of Virginia, do declare and make known that the 
powers granted under the constitution, being derived from 
the people of the United States, map be resumed by them, 
whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or 

35 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



oppression." The main point to be derived from these 
documents is the fact that every one, at that time, recog- 
nized so readily the sovereignty and identity of the 
States; that these States were admitted to the Union 
under these restricting conditions so plainly set down, 
and no one advanced any contradiction. Their si- 
lence is ample proof of their concordance with these senti- 
ments. We need scarcely summon to our aid the stupend- 
ous mass of testimony that is at hand, when we already 
have such unanswerable arguments as these. The great 
Webster himself was silenced by these indisputable facts. 
And Why need we say anything upon the subject of the 
preamble — one of the rocks upon which the nationalists pin 
their faith — when it has so often and so forcibly shown 
that this wording was unavoidable under the circum- 
stances, and that the members of the convention regarded 
it as synonymous in substance with the original draft? 
This argument having been refuted, I say, by more learned 
heads than ours, we will bring our case to a close, and 
advance to the question of secession. 

Since we have arrived at the conclusion that the Union 
is a compact between sovereign and independent States, 
we must next consider whether or not these separate polit- 
ical units had the. right to withdraw from this compact or 
agreement. 

No more binding or indisputable principle of law is 
recognized than that when one party to a compact violates 
the agreement, the other party is released from all obliga- 
tions. How much more evident in a political partnership, 
where certain actions are so pregnant with obvious dangers 
and evils! The Federal Government was regarded, by its 
founders, as such a compact ; and it was the accumulation 
of palpable infringements of their rights that forced the 
Southern States of the Union to dissolve the partnership. 

It will be quite needless for us to trace the origin and 
development of the secessional theory. It is common knowl- 
edge how, in the first decades of the Union, the New Eng- 

36 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION 

land States threatened time and again to withdraw from 
the compact. How no one disputed their right to do so at 
will. How they even went so far in 1814 as to call the 
Hartford Convention, not to consider the legality of seces- 
sion, but the expediency of the court. How the North 
urged disunion when the Louisiana purchase was made, 
and when Texas was admitted to the Union. But there 
is another fact not so generally known, and that is that 
every president from 1800 to 1860 was elected on the plat- 
form of State Sovereignty; each chief executive from Mr. 
•Jefferson to Mr. Lincoln's time was an avowed exponent of 
the independence of the States. You see what this means. 
Merely that for sixty years this momentous question was 
laid before the people of the States, and a majority of these 
States each time upheld States' rights. Many will ask, 
what about General Jackson's Proclamation of Nullifica- 
tion? Instead of avowing nationalistic belief in this paper, 
what he really said was, that while he did not deny the 
"indefeasible right" of any state to object to any unauthor- 
ized action of Congress, he did not see how any one state 
could nullify an act of Congress, and "still stay in the 
Union." And this, you see, is a plain confession of the 
right of secession. And General Harrison, while really 
elected on a war platform, expressed his opinions in his 
inaugural address : "Our Confederation is perfectly illus- 
trated by the terms and principles governing a common 
co-partnership." 

Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Union and writer of 
the Declaration of Independence, leaves no doubt as to his 
views and those of the States, in the Kentucky resolutions : 
"The several States composing the United States of Amer- 
ica were not united on the principle of unlimited submis- 
sion to their general government; but that, by compact, 
under the style and title of a constitution * * * they 
constitute a general government for general purposes." 
On another occasion, James Madison called the constitu- 
tion "a compact between the States in their highest sov- 

37 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

ereign capacity." And of equal significance is the state- 
ment of Chief Justice Jay, that "the constitution of the 
United States is a compact." Few people are cognizant of 
the fact that, later in life, Daniel Webster changed ma- 
terially his conception of the Union. His testimony should 
be of the greatest weight in any argument that has to do 
with the constitution. Mark carefully what this genius 
said in 1839 : "How absurd is it to suppose that where 
different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, 
either can disregard any one provision and expect the other 
to abide by the rest !*'■*•*. I have not hesitated to say, 
and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, wilfully 
and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the con- 
stitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, 
and Congress provides no remedy, the South would no 
longer be bound to observe the compact." 

To uphold and endorse the character of our argument — 
the numerous questions and opinions of the authors of 
the constitution — let us appeal to that legal maxim which 
says : "Contemporanea Expositio est optima et fortissimo 
in Lege/' In other words, the best and surest mode of ex- 
pounding an instrument is by referring to time when, and 
circumstances under which, it was made. Can there be 
any surer method of ascertaining the original import of 
the constitution than by reviewing the sentiments of the 
men who wrote it? What matters subsequent expositions, 
if we have at hand the ideas and intentions of the founders 
of the Union? In pursuance of this line of argument, let 
us delve still deeper into the storehouse of constitutional 
records. At the time when the constitution was under 
consideration by the States, Alexander Hamilton wrote in 
the Federalist: "Do they require that, in the establish- 
ment of the constitution, the States should be regarded as 
distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded 
by the constitution proposed." There is also preserved to 
us a speech of Roger Sherman, in which he said : "Foreign 
powers have made treaties with us as Confederate States, 

38 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AN© SECESSION 

not as a national government." When we have on our 
side the written testimony of such men as Sherman, Patter- 
son, Hamilton, Morris, Bedford, Madison and Pinckney — 
men whose names are appended to the constitution — what 
can be said in behalf of the strange and unthought of in- 
terpretations placed on that famous document? Their sen- 
timents are in entire uniformity, and each and every one 
eschews any idea of the surrender of the States' sovereignty 
in the constitution. 

We must all admit that foreign students of the theory 
of government should be able to render an impartial ex- 
position of the constitution. All agree that the States not 
only retained their entire independence in this Union, but 
had the right to withdraw from it at will. Our paper 
would be incomplete without the opinion of at least one of 
these unprejudiced observers. De Tocqueville, an earnest 
student and profound thinker, makes this plain statement : 
"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of 
the States ; and these, uniting together, have not forfeited 
their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the con- 
dition of one and the same people. If one of the States 
chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be 
difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal 
Government would have no means of maintaining its 
claims directly, either by force or by right." This is a 
clear, concise exposition that corresponds in every detail 
with the original purpose in the minds of the makers of 
the Union. 

We have now arrived at a point around which there 
has been so much dispute. We have endeavored to show 
that the thirteen States composing the original Union re- 
tained their identity and independence under the present 
constitution; that the confederation was a compact be- 
tween sovereign parties and the new Union a like con- 
tract; and that the States believed the Federal Govern- 
ment an agreement from which they were at liberty to with- 
draw if circumstances wararnted such an action. But the 

39 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



question now arises, who is the final arbiter of violations 
of this compact, Who is to judge of infringements of the 
agreement? 

Many Northern writers have insisted that the Supreme 
Court of the United States must be the final arbiter of 
violations of the compact. But this could hardly be the 
case. These gentlemen base their argument upon the clause 
in the constitution which makes the Supreme Court the 
court of last resort in "all cases in law and equity" ; over- 
looking the fact such a vital question as any infringement 
of the compact must lie beyond the pale of law and equity. 
The power which the Federal Government wields was en- 
trusted to it by the States, and consequently these should 
be the judge of the power that they delegated. As Jeffer- 
son says in the Kentucky resolutions : "The government 
created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final 
judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since 
that would have made its discretion, and not the constitu- 
tion, the measure of its power; but that, as in all other 
cases of compact between parties having no common judge, 
each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of 
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." And 
this is a succinct statement of the conviction of the "loose- 
constructionists," the party to which the Southern States 
adhered. It is inconceivable to believe, in the light of ex- 
isting testimony, that the men who were so resentful of any 
implied attack on the sovereignty of the state would have 
made this creature of the States the judge of the powers 
delegated to it. On the contrary, they were careful to re- 
tain intact just such powers as this by the insertion of the 
Tenth Amendment. We can gain a fair idea of what the 
people of the early Kepublic thought upon the subject by 
the perusal of the report of the Hartford Convention, which 
met in 1814 to consider the advisability of the New Eng- 
land States withdrawing from the Union. These repre- 
sentatives declared that, "When emergencies occur which 
are either beyond the reach of the judicial tribunals, or 

40 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND SECESSION 

too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their forms, 
states which have no common umpire must be their own 
judges, and execute their own decisions." The careful 
reader will immediately see that this "contemporanea ex- 
positio" is not only an open refutation of the claim that 
the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, but is an unmistak- 
able avowal that the States have reserved the right to judge 
of any violations of the compact that unites them. So it 
is not so astonishing to learn that a convention in Ohio 
in 1859 declared the constitution a compact to which each 
state acceded as an integral party and each has the right 
to judge for itself of infractions; and to this such men as 
Giddings, Wade, Chase and Denison assented ! 

It is a source of gratification to the people of the South 
that each day brings forth some new light which reflects 
credit upon the men of 1860-65; that each year the con- 
viction is becoming firmer and more universal that the 
South fought not only for what they thought was right, 
but what was ethically and legally right. Henry Cabot 
Lodge of the United States Senate, himself a Northerner, 
has summed up the whole matter in a nut shell : "When 
the constitution was adopted by the votes of the States 
at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of the States 
in popular conventions, it is safe to say that there was not 
a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton on 
the one side, to George Clinton and George Mason on the 
other, who regarded the new system as anything but an 
experiment entered upon by the States, and from which 
each and every state had the right to peacably withdraw, 
a right," he adds, "which was very likely to be exercised." 

Quae cum ita sint, since these things are so, we concur 
most heartily in the beliefs entertained by Mr. Calhoun. 
The arguments advanced by this champion of State Sov- 
ereignty were unanswerable. Mr. Webster never attempted 
a refutal, no one before or since could reply to him. We 
believe that sovereign states adopted the constitution, and 
since sovereignty is indivisible, although the States dele- 

41 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



gated to the Federal Government the right to exercise cer- 
tain powers for the common good, each of these political 
units reserved its sovereignty entire, and had the right of 
an independent state to resist the attempt of any one to 
exercise over it power that the state had not relinquished ; 
and that in such case, each state had the indefeasible right, 
in virtue of its undiminished sovereignty, to assert its in- 
dependence and to withdraw from the compact. 



42 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE 
ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH. 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE 

ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH. 

By Joseph M. Crockett — 1911. 

Much has been written of the barrenness of the Old 
South in the field of literature. Nevertheless, world-wide 
are the erroneous impressions as to the causes of this in- 
controvertible fact. It is most fitting that the causes be 
considered that lead to such a condition, for in the Old 
South lived a people with an intellectuality of the highest 
order, and their failure to produce a recognized literature 
and scholarship is one of the most notable conditions of 
a civilization which was as remarkable in many respects 
as any that has existed since the dawn of history. 

It was not due to intellectual poverty, yet, this is one 
of the impressions that has gone abroad. Thomas Nelson 
Page, a southern writer who has received universal recog- 
nition and praise, has well answered this accusation : "The 
charge, however, is without foundation, as will be apparent 
to any fair-minded student who considers the position 
held by the South not only during the period of the forma- 
tion of the government, but also throughout the long strug- 
gle between the South and the North over the momentous 
questions generated by the institution of slavery. In the 
former crisis the South asserted herself with a power and 
wisdom unsurpassed in the history of intellectual resource ; 
throughout the latter period she maintained the contest 
with consummate ability and with transcedent vigor of 
intellect." History abundantly justifies the conclusion 
reached by Mr. Page. 

When the American colonies decreed to withstand fur- 
ther oppression and tyranny from across the sea, the Old 

45 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



South gave Washington, who among the military leaders 
of that memorable war, stands alone like some peak in 
the mountain range of greatness. When the young repub- 
lic was shrouded in discouragement and disaster, and the 
people generally were longing for the war to cease, it was 
a southerner, Patrick Henry, who fired into the hearts of 
his countrymen a desire to conquer or to die. Thomas Jef- 
ferson, "The Sage of Monticello," penned the noted writ- 
ing that severed the child from its cruel mother. The con- 
stitution of the United States is one of the greatest and 
most stable governmental documents ever constructed by 
man, and James Madison gained the reputation among its 
makers as the "Father of the Constitution." John Mar- 
shall was its great expounder. It is well to remember that 
the South furnished two members of the Great Triumvir- 
ate, Clay and Calhoun ; and while Webster frequently rose 
to a high pitch of eloquence that placed him as an orator 
beyond the reach of rivalry, thousands of students have as- 
signed both Clay and Calhoun to a rank higher than third. 
Henry Clay was in many respects the greatest parlimen- 
tarian America has yet produced. 

William Pinckney (1764-1882), of Maryland, has been 
entitled by no less contemporaries than Story and Benton 
as the most brilliant lawyer at the American bar during 
the early part of the nineteenth century ; although he was 
frequently interrupted in the practice of his profession by 
his country's call, and rendered distinguished services as a 
cabinet officer, a member of both branches of Congress and 
as United States minister to the Court of St. James during 
the critical period from 1807 to 1811. In the medical pro- 
fession, Dr. J. P. Mettauer (1787-1875), of Prince Edward 
County, Virginia, took first rank in this country. One of 
his notable achievements in the early part of the nineteenth 
century was his recognition of typhoid fever as a distinct 
disease, and his valuable articles showing its characteristic 
symptoms as compared with typhus and remittent fever. 
Many other instances can be pointed out of writers, law- 

46 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH 

yers, statesmen, authors, orators, poets, physicians, 
soldiers, scientists, philosophers, ministers and diplomats 
— in fact from every vocation, showing that among the 
Southern people was an intelligence and expertness seldom 
found within the compass of so brief a regime; but with 
particular persons this paper is concerned only to the 
extent of showing that the lack of literature in the Old 
South cannot be attributed to mental indigence or mental 
lassitude. 

The Southern people were an agricultural people and 
no agricultural people has ever produced a literature. In 
the history of literary life, cities have proved essential 
where men with literary instincts may commingle and 
where their thoughts may be focussed. Instead of settling 
in towns and communities and building up manufacturing 
and industrial centers, the bent of the Southern people 
from the beginning was to hold property in severalty in 
large bodies, and to continue the memorial system after the 
custom of their fathers and their kinsmen of the old coun- 
try with whom even after the Eevolution, they kept up a 
sort of traditional association. As post-bellum life in the 
South has shown, Slavery was the cause of this condition. 

The notion that the Southerner of the old regime was 
little more than a gentleman of courtly manners, old fash- 
ioned culture and luxurious habits is also attributable to 
the fact that they lived on large estates and were waited on 
by servants and slaves. Besides keeping the Southerner on 
large plantations, thus making impossible literary foci, 
slavery also engendered many questions in the halls of 
Congress and elsewhere that so unremittingly exercise the 
attention of the South that it had neither time nor oppor- 
tunity, if it had had the inclination, to apply itself to other 
matters. The intellectual powers of the South were so 
obsorbantly devoted to the subject of slavery and other 
questions generated by it, of a polemical character, that 
it generally took the direction of spoken and not of writ- 
ten speech. Again, the physical conditions as hereinbefore 

47 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

mentioned were so adverse to the production of a literature 
that those who turned their attention to the writing of 
verse and fiction received little, if any, encouragement 
from their fellow Southerners. Not only the Southland, 
thus far America has not been the land of truly great poets, 
but surely one of the best ways to bring forth great poets 
is to give reasonable support to those we have, and since 
the ante-bellum Southerners did not foster and buoy up 
their own versifying compatriots, it is no wonder that 
these servants of the Muses received but scant considera- 
tion in other quarters. It was a lack of inclination and 
not a lack of knowledge, for the ancient classics were 
widely diffused among the Southern people, not merely to 
the extent that they were walking repositories of dead 
learning, but it was part and parcel of their social life and 
weapons in their harangues on the stump and in the legis- 
lative halls of the state and nation. 

"Literature," says Carlyle, "is the thought of thinking 
souls." "Accepting this definition," says Page, "the South 
was rich in literature." There was sufficient poetry and 
wisdom delivered on the porticoes and in the halls of the 
Southern people to have enriched the age, had it been trans- 
mitted in permanent form; but wanting both the means 
and the inclination, they were wasted in discourse or were 
spent in mere debate. 

Though natural environment prevented the develop- 
ment of a literature in the South, a brief survey of the his- 
tory of Southern journalism will readily reveal the high 
intellectual powers of the ante-bellum leaders, their failure 
being solely due to the fact that their literary work was in 
the main but the desultory "jottings down" in their hours 
of recreation of fragmentary sketches, which were usually 
based on the humorous phases of life with which their pro- 
fession made them familiar, and almost the best is stamped 
with the mark of an apparent dilettanteism. 

The dominant power in the early colonial government 
was the governor. In order to exercise with adequate 

48 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH 

facility this control in the hands of the reigning force, and 
to place before the colonists adequately the laws passed 
for the administration of their affairs, a means of ready in- 
formation was pre-eminently important. As a response to 
this demand many prominent colonists established news- 
papers and periodicals designed to convey in accurate form 
the information of the day. 

The Southern colonies were generous in their contribu- 
tion of such public-spirited men. To Maryland must be 
awarded, however, the honor of the first editor, one Wil- 
liam Parks, who, in 1727, instituted the publication of the 
Maryland Gazette, at Annapolis, Maryland. This was the 
genesis of that noble group of men in the South, who, as 
editors, have contributed the full measure of their abilities 
to the organization and the reorganization of their native 
or even adopted section. In the spirit that has dwelt in 
their never-ceasing efforts for the public benefit, there is 
something appealing in the devoted patriotism that ever 
has been theirs. 

Parks, of Maryland, was not alone in his adventure. 
Some three years afterwards in the sister colony of Soulh 
Carolina, at Charleston, Eleazer Phillips, formerly of New 
England, attempted the same course in the South Carolina 
Journal. Not to be left behind, Virginia contributed one 
of the most striking of the early colonial editors of the 
South in the person of John Bradford, who honored him- 
self by being the first man to found a newspaper to the west 
of the Alleghany Mountains. It was in 1787, amid the 
initial movement of the new government, that the B.en- 
tucky Gazette appeared. Georgia claims, however, some- 
time prior to this event, the Georgia Gazette, which was 
made possible in 1763 through the genius of that hardy 
Scotchman, James Johnson. 

The last members of this early group of Southern edi- 
tors, who had accomplished already so much by their virile 
publications, were Fontaine, Hood and Miller. Fontaine 
established the New Orleans Moniteur in a city that was 

49 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

to become the home of many valuable periodicals. Subse- 
quently, eight years later, Hood and Miller undertook 
their most thank-worthy editorial labors in the founding 
of the Mobile Sentinel. The owners and editors of these 
early sheets were usually one and the same person, and 
they combined in themselves the fearless director of public 
opinion and the competent business manager. It was not 
until later that the editorial and business office became di- 
vorced. The history of the editorial policy of the South is 
the composite of several grand divisions following a natural 
historic sequence. The spirit of the editors of the ante- 
bellum period, their methods and activities, in the main, 
was diametrically in opposition to the second school dur- 
ing the last few decades of post-bellum times. The editors 
of the ante J bellum period, being primarily men of influen- 
tial personalities and active partizans, logically grouped 
themselves by their states in which they chanced to reside. 
One of the most influential of these state schools of 
editors, if they may be so designated, was that in existence 
in Virginia. A fitting co-partner to her material duties 
as sponsor for political leaders were Virginia's duties as 
the guardian of the editorial leaders of the nation and the 
South. Within her environs she may justly claim the dis- 
tinction of having the first editor of real intellectual con- 
sequence. Out of a distinguished group of three, Thomas 
Ritchie (1778-1854), enjoyed the distinction of being the 
first to gain a vital political foothold in the counsels of 
the state and nation. He was a striking character. No 
man combined within himself in all the states of that 
period such qualities as he possessed for zeal and woe. No 
man, assuredly, was possessed of such conflicting attributes 
as to make him the object of fear and bitter hatred in one 
camp, and abject adoration and fanatic belief in the other. 
The qualifications of an editor of those times in a measure 
explain the cause of the popular estimate of Thomas Rit- 
chie. The very editorial and political atmosphere was 
alive with a virulent bitterness in which no man might 

50 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE3 ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH 

indulge without justly bringing down upon his head the 
wrath of some faction. Sophistries and trickery, violent 
accusations and vitriolic denunciations, libel and political 
slander were legitimate weapons of the day for the de- 
struction of an antagonist. 

Ritchie was rn accomplished master of these tools of 
his newspaper craft. As a consequence of his attitude of 
the Democratic organ, the Richmond Enquirer, he rose to 
a position of leadership in the ranks of his party. Con- 
signed by his opponents to an eternal damnation, and 
lauded by his supporters to a niche beside that of Jeffer- 
son, it is of no wonder that the accounts of that time va- 
riously assign him curious positions. He was undoubtedly 
the leading journalist of the South during his period of 
leadership. 

In direct opposition to this Democratic leader was a 
similar figure in the Whig ranks. John Hampden Pleasants 
was editor of the Richmond Whig. Journalism of those 
days was all personalities. Naturally Ritchie straightway 
fell afoul of Pleasants ; the battle was hotly contested and 
bitter in the extreme. After Ritchie went to take charge 
of another publication in Washington, Ritchie, Jr., and 
another member of the family, took possession of the Ex- 
aminer. As a result of an implication of some dishonor 
passing between these new editors and John Hampden 
Pleasants, the latter was killed in a duel with Ritchie, Jr. 
Editorial life was n militant one, indeed, in those years of 
bitter animosities. 

The last member of this trio of Virginia editors was 
the commanding figure of John M. Daniel (1825-1865). 
After some extreme experiences as minister at a foreign 
court, he became the head of a semi-independent Demo- 
cratic paper, the Richmond Examiner. Following the ex- 
ample of his compeers, he, too, indulged in the approved 
personalities of the journalistic methods of the day. His 
independence and spirit were a valuable asset; they did 
much for his paper and resulted in inestimable good to 

51 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



the politics of his state and section. The roll of Virginia 
editors is concluded by the names of several other lesser 
personages : Gales and Seaton, at the helm of the National 
Intelligencer, had a comprehensive influence, while Frank- 
lin P. Blair and John C. Beeves edited with commanding 
ability the Globe of the Democratic party. 

South Carolina has always enjoyed a very enviable dis- 
tinction in Southern letters. Her quota of editors sub- 
stantiate her claim materially. Her first magazine and 
its prestige in the South being the initial venture of its 
kind, it drew many competent men of letters to her cities. 
Prominent among her literary men were, of course, the 
editors of the various publications. William Gilmore 
Simms was the leader of this capable group of men. Not 
satisfied with contributing to numberless periodicals, with 
his duties of editorship and production of miscellaneous 
articles, this voluminous writer must needs make a name 
for himself by founding and acting as editor of the Charles- 
ton Gazette. The personality of Richard Yeadon, a con- 
temporary of Simms, was unique. As editor of the Charles- 
ton Courier his direction of many political policies was as- 
sured. He took advantage of his position. The record of 
his long fight for nullification and secession was a notable 
one ; the application of this versatile lawyer's trained facul- 
ties to the task of moulding a public opinion was an essen- 
tial factor in the attitude of this state to the dominant 
question of the period. 

Several South Carolinians migrated to the neighboring 
state of Alabama, where they secured creditable honors as 
editors. The distinguished author, A. B. Breek, was one 
of these literary adventurers ; he became connected in time 
with the famous journal, the Mobile Register. The second 
of these South Carolinians was John J. Seibels. His for- 
tunes were cast with the influential Montgomery Adver- 
tiser. The Mobile Register had allied with it as makers of 
its long and notable career, Samuel F. Wilson and Thad- 
deus Sandord, who were also founders. Both of these men 

52 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH 

were animated with high, though very practical, ideals of 
journalism. As a result, a deserved success became theirs, 
so that to this present day the Mobile Register continues 
to be an organ of wide influence, and considerable trust- 
worthiness. 

It is not necessary to summarize the history of journal- 
ism in the other Southern states. However, it is well to 
state that Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and 
Tennessee ranked equally in men of letters with South 
Carolina and Alabama. From such a record, how can we 
believe other than that the responsibility for the want of 
a literature was not with the writers, but with the en- 
vironment? There was lacking not only the mental stimu- 
lus of contact between mind and mind, but also that yet 
more essential inspiration, sympathy with literary vitality 
which is as important — as the atmosphere is to physical 
existence. 

Not only did the Old South produce men of distinction 
in journalism, but also in the realm of song and story. 
Of these we mention first the immortal Poe. Notwith- 
standing the coldness and indifference which he encount- 
ered in the Old Dominion, Poe ever declared himself a 
Virginian; and with all due respect to certain latter-day 
critics, who assert the contrary, it must be said that to 
those familiar with the qualities and with the points of 
difference between the Northern and Southern civiliza- 
tions, Poe's poems are as distinctly Southern in their color- 
ing, tone and temper as Wadsworth's are English. Poe, 
however, was limited by no boundary, geographical or 
other. The spirit-peopled air, the infernal chambers of 
fancied inquisitions, the regions of the morn, the imagined 
horrors of post-mortem sentence, were equally his realm. 
In all, his vast and weird and wonderful genius roamed 
unconfined and equally at home. In all, he credited his 
own atmosphere and projected his marvelous fancies with 
an originality and a power whose universal application is 
the undeniable and perfect proof of his supreme genius. 

53 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

The story of his life reads more like romance than his- 
tory. But with his personal career this paper is not con- 
cerned. His life has been for more than a generation the 
object of attack and vituperation which have raged with 
inconceivable violence. From the time that Griswold per- 
petrated his "Immortal Infamy," vindictiveness has found 
in Poe's career its most convenient target. Yet the works 
of this unfortunate have caught the human heart, and are 
today the common property of the English-speaking races, 
whether dwelling in Virginia or Massachusetts, Great 
Britain or Australia, and have been translated into the 
language of every civilized nation of Europe. Recent sta- 
tistics from the English publishers, the Routledges, showed 
that thirty-six thousand copies of Poe's tales had been sold 
by them in the year 1903, as against less than one-third of 
that of many of the most popular and famous of our other 
American authors. 

There were only three other verse makers besides Poe 
that can be described as professional men of letters. Wil- 
liam Gilmore Simms, Henry Timrod and Paul Hamilton 
Hayne. The rest were lawyers, physicians, ministers, pol- 
iticians, editors, and sentimental men and women who, 
busy with other things, courted the Muses as a kind of 
recreation. 

Already, Simms is rarely thought of as a poet, for his 
talent and power seem to have been in other fields, and 
the amount of inferior verse left by him is immense; but 
with Timrod and Hayne the case is different. Both were 
men of exceptional poetic talent, and time will rather add 
to than detract from their fame. The gentle, high chivalry 
in the best Southern characters, the Southerner's love of 
state and section, the romantic color of his imagination, 
the sentimentality of his temperament, his adoration and 
respect for feminine beauty and purity are reflected with 
grace and charm, in the poetry of Hayne. 

William Gilmore Simms has been mentioned both as a 
poet and as an editor, but it is as a romancer that he will 

54 



JOURNALISM AND AUTHORSHIP IN THE ANTE-BELLUM SOUTH 

be remembered. He was a pioneer in the promotion of 
the literature of the Old South, and was her most repre- 
sentative man of letters. His great versatility kept him 
from following the true bent of his genius. He tried every- 
thing, and consequently, did not become pre-eminent in 
anything. Trent, in his biography of him, in summarizing 
his activity from 1842 to 1850, says : 

"The main business of his life appeared to consist in en- 
deavoring to put as many irons as possible in the fire. In 
these eight years he edits two magazines, begins to edit 
a third, is his own chief contributor, and favors his New 
York, Philadelphia and Richmond confreres with a peren- 
nial supply of manuscript. He is equally dexterous in 
dashing off satire and in delivering Fourth of July and 
commencement orations. He turns biographer, and with 
apparently little effort writes the lives of three American 
heroes, and then adventurously tries his hand on the ro- 
mantic career of Bayard. He continues his investigations 
into the history of his native state, and publishes a geog- 
raphy of the same. He assumes the role of critic, fills his 
magazines with reviews long and short, and collects the 
best in two volumes. He edits apocryphal plays, and serves 
two years in the legislature. And in the midst of it all he 
finds time for an annual visit to the North, for jauntings 
through the South and Southwest, for balls and parties in 
Charleston, and for the duties of a planter at Woodlands." 

Simms is an example of a truly literary man who was 
prevented from making himself renowned the world over 
by the adverse conditions of the ante-bellum period. 

John Pendleton Kennedy and Augustus Baldwin Long- 
street did not take literature so seriously as did Simms, 
but their stories will ever be loved by Southern people as 
reflective of the days of their fathers. From 1850 to 1861, 
some novels, mostly sentimental and sensational, were ap- 
pearing from time to time. 

It is only meant by this essay to suggest, there being 
no space for discussion, consequently many imperishable 

55 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



names in the intellectual life of that gone era are not 
mentioned. The thoughtful and dispassionate student will 
know that the Old South did not fail to produce literature 
because of any intellectual sluggishness or shallowness, 
but because of physical conditions that were unpropitious, 
and too potent to be overcome. In fact, the attention of 
the Southern people was directed into other channels, 
where their work was of an ephemeral character. 



56 



STATE RIGHTS. 



STATE RIGHTS. 
By Charles Edwin Clarke — 1912. 

I was not a soldier in the war between the Staes, nor 
have I any desire to keep alive any spirit of animosity be- 
tween the Northern and Southern sections of the United 
States. I have so constantly heard my people denounced 
as "rtebels" and "traitors" — as "those who conspired to 
break up the Union/' that I gave myself to an earnest 
study of the question: Is this charge true — were our 
fathers and brothers and kinsmen such as has been writ- 
ten in the so-called histories of the day? As a result of that 
study, my conviction is clear and strong that the accusation 
of treason is not true ; on the contrary, the men who fought 
under the banner and leadership of Mr. Jefferson Davis 
were the men who fought for the constitutional principles 
given us by the founders of the federal government of the 
United States. If the young men of Virginia and the South, 
aye, all the young men of all the states would study the 
question more carefully, and more thoughtfully, they would 
know and understand the facts and the motives which 
caused our fathers to fight so obstinately and suffer the 
loss of all but honor. 

The proceedings of the convention of 1787 which met 
in Philadelphia in May and adjourned in September of 
the same year, will probably explain better the rights of 
the States than anything else. 

It is a fact known from the history of each state that 
the men who composed the Convention of 1787, were sent 
to Philadelphia by the action and authority of each state 
sending them. They were enrolled as members from their 
respective states, and as members of their states proposed, 

59 



STUDIES OP THE OLD SOUTH 

discussed, and adopted what are known as seven articles 
of the Constitution. Through the Congress of the United 
States sitting and acting under "the Articles of Confedera- 
tion" they sent the Constitution to the legislatures of the 
thirteen States, by them, i. e, v the legislatures of the States 
— to be submitted to a convention of commissioners elected 
by the people in each State, for approval or rejection. The 
language in which these men record the conclusion of their 
work shows us on whose authority they acted and for 
whose benefit what they did was done : "Done in convention 
by the unanimous consent of the States present" — not done 
by the people, but by the unanimous consent of the States 
present — "the seventeenth day of September, in the year 
of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty- 
seven." 

Article VII of the Constitution settles beyond all ques- 
tion the kind of government proposed by the instrument 
when it says : "The ratification of the conventions of nine 
states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Con- 
stitution between the States so ratifying the same." It 
does not say over the States, it does not say in place of the 
States, but between the States. Article X, which was one 
of the amendments adopted according to the provisions 
made for amending the Constitution, plainly recognizes the 
existence of the States and recognizes all their original 
rights. It reads : "The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people." If the states were merged into a national govern- 
ment, why reserve any rights to that which no longer ex- 
ists? If they, the States, no longer have any separate ex- 
istence, why reserve for them any such rights as prescribed 
in this article? 

If the States are merged into that which is to be known 
as the National Government, which supercedes the States 
in all things, and is over the States in all things concern- 
ing the States, so that the only rights left the States is 

60 



STATE RIGHTS 

unquestioned obedience to the National Government, why 
should the government be designated as that between 
States, when States as individual commonwealths, no 
longer exist? It is to any candid and earnest student the 
marvel of history that any man who is in the least familiar 
with the facts of the calling of the Convention of 1787, 
who had ever read the record of the results of the action 
of that convention, should ever question the fact of the 
rights of the States in the Government of the United 
States. Yet the student will find, written as history, such 
statements as this: "It has sometimes been said that the 
Union was in its origin a league of sovereign States, each 
of which surrendered a specific portion of its sovereignty 
to the Federal Government for the sake of the common 
welfare. Grave political arguments have been based upon 
this alleged fact; but such account of the matter Is not 
historically true. There never was a time when Massachu- 
setts or Virginia was an absolutely sovereign State like 
Holland or France" ( Critical Period of American History, 
John Fiske, p. 90). The same author in the same treatise 
says: "Could a State once adopt the Constitution and 
then withdraw from the Union if not satisfied? Madison's 
reply was prompt and decisive. No such thing could ever 
be done, a State which had once ratified was in the Federal 
bond forever. The Constitution could not provide for nor 
contemplate its own overthrow. There could be no such 
thing as a Constitutional right of secession." Just here it 
would be well to have our attention called to some other 
things written as history. Mr. Motley, a man distinguished 
amoug his countrymen for learning, has written in "Kebel- 
lion Eecord" : "It — the Constitution — was not a compact. 
Who ever heard of a contract to which there are no par- 
ties? The Constitution was not drawn up by the States; 
it was not promulgated in the name of the States ; it was 
not ratified by the States. The States never acceded to it 
and possess no power to secede from it. It was ordained 
and established over the States by a power superior to the 

61 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



States — by the people of the whole land in their aggregate 
capacity acting through conventions of delegates, expressly 
chosen for the purpose within each State, independently of 
the State government after the project had been framed." 

If this is a statement of a fact of history, then there ex- 
ists no such thing as a State having rights. Such state- 
ments as the above have been on the breeze and abroad in 
the land for years. That they are errors no fair-minded 
man will deny. But they must be shown, and the only 
way to show the errors in a case, is to produce the records 
of the facts in the case. The first record in the case in 
hand is the history of the assembly known as the Conven- 
vention of 1787. Who constituted this Convention? What 
constituted membership in this body? And how did the 
results of the work of the Convention become law? 

On the fifteenth day of November, 1777, "Articles of 
Confederation and Perpetual Union" by the delegates, in 
Congress assembled, of New Hampshire, Massachusetts 
Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecti- 
cut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and 
Georgia. Under the plan of government therein provided 
for, known as the Government of "The United States," the 
war of the Revolution was conducted and finished, when 
five commissioners from the British Government and five 
from the Government of the United States met at Paris, 
November 30, 1782, and signed a provisional treaty of 
peace. A final treaty was signed at the same place on 
the third of September of the following year. This treaty 
begins with these words: "His Britannic Majesty acknowl- 
edges the said United States" — naming each State separ- 
ately as above — "to be free, sovereign and independent 
States; that he treats them as such, and for himself, his 
successors, relinquishes all claim to the government, prop- 
erty and territorial rights of the same, and every part 
thereof." In this his Britannic Majesty means to say that 
he grants to the States herein mentioned that for which 

62 



STATE RIGHTS 

they were confederated to accomplish — their separate and 
distinct independence. If this were not the case, why 
were the States mentioned by name, and why was it stip- 
ulated in the terms of the treaty that each one by name 
should be considered free, sovereign and independent 
States? Several years after peace was established, it was 
discovered that the United States Government did not 
have the authority to raise revenue and meet all exigen- 
cies of the cases that came up for the consideration of Con- 
gress. After repeated effort to get the States in their 
sovereign capacity to act upon these considerations, the 
Virginia legislature, in 1786, resolved, "that Edmund Ran- 
dolph, James Madison, Jr., Walter Jones, St. George 
Tucker, Meriwether Smith, David Ross, William Ronald 
and George Mason, Esquires, be appointed commissioners 
who, or any five of whom, shall meet such commissioners 
as may be appointed by other States in the Union at a time 
and place to be agreed upon, to take into consideration the 
trade of the United States; to examine the relative situa- 
tion and the trade of the said States, to consider how far 
a uniform system in their Commercial regulations may be 
necessary to their common interests and their permanent 
harmony ; and to report to the several States such an act 
relative to this great object, as when unanimously ratified 
by them, will enable the United States in Congress as- 
sembled, to provide for the same; that the said Commis- 
sioners shall immediately transmit to the several States 
copies of the preceding resolutions with a circular letter 
requesting their concurrence therein, and proposing a time 
and place for the meeting aforesaid." As only four States 
responded to this invitation, nothing could be done, so a 
general convention of all the States was called, to be held 
at Philadelphia, 1787, to consider the proposed provisions 
which have just been mentioned. This was done and was 
sent to the States which had appointed the Commissioners 
to Congress, and the executives of all the States. 

But how did this convention convene? Where did those 

63 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



who were members of this assembly — the convention — get 
their authority? The records show that all the States, ex- 
cept little Rhode Island, sent men commissioned by the 
State authorities to act for the States, as their deputies, 
in the business for which they were called to meet, namely, 
"To revise the federal constitution and adapt it to the ex- 
igencies of government, and to preserve the Union. 

After the assembly convened, it was found that nothing 
could be done with the "Articles of Confederation," so they 
resolved upon working out a new plan of government. The 
question then was, what plan? 

Four propositions were submitted, two on the basis of 
a national government, two on that of a federal govern- 
ment. Thus we see the National and Federal parties in 
the convention. Those of the National party wanted to do 
away with every feature of federalism and provide for the 
establishment of a single representative republic, with the 
division of the powers of government into three depart- 
ments. This was the Virginia plan. The Federals pro- 
posed two plans, one proposed to delegate only a few addi- 
tional powers to Congress without any other change; the 
other plan provided not only for the delegation of addi- 
tional powers, such as to lay duties on foreign imports, to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and for a division 
of the powers delegated into three departments named, but 
it also provided a complete machinery for the execution of 
all the federal powers conferred by a federal organization, 
similar to that of the States, and by which the federal 
character of the government would be retained. This was 
Jefferson's idea exactly, which was thus : "To make us one 
nation as to foreign affairs, and keep up distinct in do- 
mestic ones gives the outline of the proper division of 
powers between the general and particular governments." 
This last plan given here was adopted after considerable 
rehashing. 

But how did the States proceed to make the Constitu- 
tion the bond of union betwen them? They did it through 

64 



STATE RIGHTS 



commissioners sent by each State, to the convention, and 
were empowered to act by the State, not by the people. 
Several of the States held conventions, in fact, all of them 
did. We will consider here the Massachusetts convention 
which was held to ratify the Constitution. The question 
which stirred the members of this convention was: were 
the sovereignty and rights of the States sufficiently con- 
served? The dread that they might not be, led the gentle- 
men of the convention to discuss freely, move cautiously 
and record their actions with great precision of words. 
Several of the articles of the Constitution grew out of this 
convention, and we notice in each one, the great care which 
was taken not to take away the rights of the State, article 
X reads : "The powers not delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States by it, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," which 
means that the Constitution explicitly declares that all 
powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution, are re- 
served to the several States, to be by them exercised. It 
is recorded that President Hancock, on the floor of the 
convention, said: "The objects of the proposed Constitu- 
tion are defence against external enemies and promotion 
of tranquillity and happiness amongst the States." 

In New York, as in Massachusetts, the whole contest 
was waged around the question of the existence and the 
rights of the State. The record shows that there was con- 
siderable fear that the powers delegated to the federal 
government might be exercised over the State government. 
Alexander Hamilton said, among other things, advocating 
the adoption of the Constitution : "Sir, the most powerful 
obstacle to the members of Congress betraying the inter- 
ests of their constituents, is the State legislatures them- 
selves, who will be standing bodies of observation, possess- 
ing the confidence of the people, jealous of the federal en- 
croachments, and armed with every power to check the 
first essay of treachery." In every speech made in favor 
of adopting the Constitution, the rights of the States were 

65 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



conceded, and in the final action of the convention it was 
especially stipulated that the powers of government may 
be reassumed by the people whensoever it may become nec- 
essary to their happiness. Why, the very foundation of 
Wilson's advocacy was that the rights of the States were 
recognized and secured. In speaking of the system of this 
government, he said : "This, instead of placing the State 
government in jeopardy, is founded on their existence. 

On this principle its organizations depend: it must 
stand or fall as the State governments are secured or re- 
served." In the adopting act of Virginia it is expressly 
recorded, "that the powers granted under the Constitution, 
being derived from the people of the United States, may be 
resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted 
to their injury or oppression; and that every power not 
granted thereby, remains with them and at their will, and 
that therefore no right of any denomination can be can- 
celed, abridged, restrained, or modified by Congress, by the 
Snate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capac- 
ity, by the President, or any department or officer of the 
United States except in those instances in which power is 
given by the Constitution for those purposes." 

So we see by the record of the case: First, that the 
convention which formulated the Constitution was com- 
posed of the deputies of the States. In all their voting 
they voted as States; when their work was completed it 
was submitted to the States for their approval or disap- 
proval. 

Secondly. We see from further examination of the 
record that each one of the States, in its sovereign capacity 
in convention of delegates chosen by the people of each 
State, took into consideration the Constitution sent them 
by the Congress of the United States and after days of 
discussion, all assembled and ratified the document as a 
bond of union known as the federal government of the 
Union. It was the action of the States that made it the 
bond of Union. 

66 



STATE RIGHTS 



It was not the intention or purpose of the Convention 
of 1787 to make a consolidated government of the United 
States. This is seen in the fact that the word "National" 
was struck out, and the Government of the United States 
substituted for it, and this means a federal government. 
It is one government as to foreign affairs, and is kept dis- 
tinct in domestic ones. The man who speaks of the United 
States government as a national one, speaks of that which 
has no existence. The legislative, judicial, and executive 
functions of the federal government have no authority 
apart from that granted by the Constitution. All power 
or authority by these functions of government is dele- 
gated by the States. To exercise any other is usurpation ; 
to do otherwise than to use the authority delegated in the 
bond of union is perjury. Furthermore, the records show 
that the federal government is a compact between the 
States, and in no sense over the States. If this is ques- 
tioned, article VII of the Constitution settles it beyond 
all cavil. This section reads : "The ratification of the con- 
ventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establish- 
ment of this Constitution between the States ratifying the 
same." In this statement the existence of the States as 
such is recognized and their continued existence is clearly 
set forth in the manner of organization of the Senate and 
their method of voting. According to Article IV, section 
4: "The United States government shall guarantee to 
every State in the Union a republican form of government 
and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on 
application of the legislature or of the executive — when 
the legislature cannot be convened — against domestic vio- 
lence." Now if the States ceased to exist, why this pro- 
vision for their protection? That the government was be- 
tween and not over the States was a fact accepted by all 
until the teaching of Story, Webster and Kent was re- 
ceived and promulgated by their followers. In 1798 the 
Virginia ^Resolutions, setting forth the doctrine that the 
federal government was a compact between the States, 

67 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

was responded to with an emphatic approval by all the 
States. Another fact : the method of electing the President 
declares that this federal government is a government be- 
tween the States. The President holds his office through 
the majority of the States voting for him, and not the 
majority of the people in the States. Now, if the govern- 
ment was one nation, the majority of all the people ought 
to elect the President. But from the method of choosing 
the President, w T e see the rights of the States preserved. 
And "it is as much the duty of the States to watch over 
the rights reserved as of the United States to exercise the 
powers Which are delegated" (Journal of Hartford Con- 
vention, p. 7). Again, "But in case of deliberate, danger- 
ous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution affecting 
the sovereignty of the States and liberties of the people, it 
is not only the right, but the duty of such State to inter- 
pose its authority for their protection in the manner best 
calculated to secure that end. States which have no com- 
mon umpire must be their own judges and execute their 
own decisions." Mr. Daniel Webster says that Massachu- 
setts "gave up all opposition" when the Supreme Court of 
the United States decided that the laws of which she com- 
plained were constitutional. But the records of the con- 
vention flatly contradict Mr. Webster, and show that what 
I have just quoted from the "Journal" is true. 

It appears then to be a plain principle founded in com- 
mon sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential 
to the nature of compacts, that where resort can be had to 
no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the 
parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last 
resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or vio- 
lated. The Constitution of the United States was framed 
by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign 
capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity as well as to 
the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this 
legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being 
the parties to the Constitutional compact, and in their 

68 



STATE RIGHTS 



sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can 
be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last 
resort, whether the compact made by them be violated ; and 
consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must them- 
selves decide in the last report such questions as may be of 
sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. 



69 



CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR. 
By John McGavack, Jr. — 1913. 

In every great nation there has been a period of civil 
strife. The oppression of the citizen by those who rnle has 
in most cases been the cause. This is exemplified in the 
ancient Roman empire, when the whole nation rose up and 
overthrew the tyrannical government; in France, during 
the Reign of Terror, we have the conflict of the masses 
against the few ; the civil war in England was a fight for 
liberty and freedom from taxation; while in Germany we 
have portrayed the terrible conflict for religious liberty. 
So in a cursory examination of our great civil dissention, 
we might well regard it as one of those political upheavals 
common to every nation. 

An interesting cause for this war is given by the histor- 
ian Greg. He claims that it is a continuation of the wars 
of Cromwell. America is but a new England — there is a 
change of name but not of race. The North was settled 
by Puritans and the descendants from the Roundheads; 
the South drew its population from among the nobles and 
the English peerage. Thus, originally, both sections were 
inhabited with people, who by nature were opposed to each 
other, and as a consequence a difference of opinion on any 
question was all that was necessary for the one to attempt 
to prove its supremacy over the other. This plausible 
presentation of the question may have some ground for 
truth, but we can hardly take it as the direct cause of the 
war of the sixties. 

Probably another indirect cause of this war was due to 
the fact that geographically the two sections of the country 
were vastly different. In one, industries and manufac- 

71 



STUDIES OF TPIE OLD SOUTH 



turies were the rule — here the winter cold directly opposed 
the idea that agriculture could be the main occupation. 
Hence, as the acquirement of all labor saving devices pro- 
duces, energy, progress and business capability was the 
watchword. On the other hand the fertility of the soil and 
climatic conditions of the sunny South easily made it the 
farm of not only America, but also of foreign countries. 
Luxury, wealth and intellectuality were its watchwords. 
Naturally in Congress, where the national laws were dis- 
cussed and made, these two sections fought obstinately 
with each other, each trying to have legislation favorable 
to his own district, and consequently unfavorable to the 
other side. As long as these two parts of the country were 
equally represented, compromises tended to keep the fac- 
tions quiescent, but when one side began to have a pro- 
nounced majority dissatisfaction at once ensued. 

It is a unique coincidence that the main argument for 
each side was liberty — both desired it, but desired it in an 
entirely different way. In the North, where climatic con- 
ditions prevented slavery in any form, the cry of freedom 
for the negro was upon every tongue, was made the chief 
subject of discussion in every political speech, was heralded 
abroad by every newspaper with wonderful alacrity. In 
the South the cry of freedom came from another source — 
it was the cry of political freedom. The right of a state to 
manage her own property without interference from the 
national government. Their position is well given by Dr. 
Dabney: "History will some day place the position of 
these Confederate states, in this high argument, in the 
clearest light of her glory. The cause they undertook to 
defend was that of regulated, constitutional liberty, and 
fidelity to law and covenants, against the licentious vio- 
lence of physical power. The assumptions they resisted 
were precisely those of that radical democracy, which 
deluged Europe with blood at the close of the eighteenth 
century, and which shook its thrones again in the convul- 
sions of 1848 ; the agrarianism which, under the name of 

72 



CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR 



equality, would subject all the rights of individuals to the 
will of the many, and acknowledged no law or ethics, save 
the lust of that mob which happens to be larger. * * * 
This, in truth, was the monster whose terrific pathway 
among the nations, the Confederate States undertook to 
Obstruct, in behalf of not only their own children, but of 
all the children of men." (Dabney's Life of Stonewall 
Jackson. ) 

Southern writers give "States Rights" as the primary 
cause of this war. Their argument was that under the 
constitution each state was supreme and in no way sub- 
servient to the national government. They considered the 
different states were bound together in a centralized form 
of government primarily for the protection against foreign 
foes. In other words they interpreted the constitution in 
its literal sense, and did not recognize any of the implied 
powers that some claimed it possessed. "The struggle or 
conflict, * * * from its rise to its culmination, was 
between those, in whatever state they lived, were for 
maintaining our Federal system as it was established, and 
those who were for a consolidation of power in the central 
head." ( Stephen's War Between the States. ) The states 
were sovereign and they alone had power to regulate con- 
ditions in their own section. 

This question — that of "States Rights" — is probably 
the primary cause for which the war was fought ; but in our 
opinion before even this question was raised, the actual 
cause of the war was manifest. We refer to the many dis- 
putes regarding territory — whether or not the customs of 
the South or the North should prevail upon addition of 
new states to the Union. The Louisiana purchase of 1803 
enlarged our possessions to such an extent that of neces- 
sity new states must be admitted. The dispute was 
whether or not this territory should be admitted as a slave 
or a free state. Southerners desired the first alternative, 
as they wished additional markets for their surplus slaves. 
This was a natural position for them to take, as between 

73 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

the decade of 1850 and 1860 out of the total estimated value 
of property in the South of five billions of dollars, three 
and one-half billion consisted in the value of the slaves. 
On the other hand, the North was directly opposed to the 
extension of slavery — they claimed that it was below the 
dignity of a civilized nation to countenance of such an 
ancient and what they called barbarous custom. The Mis- 
souri Compromise was the direct effect of the collision of. 
these two different sectional sentiments. If no new terri- 
tory had been added to the original thirteen colonies we 
can safely say that history would have never had to tell 
the sad tale of such an awful struggle. But as new states 
were added just so much more was the strength or the 
Federal government increased — the territory received its 
title of statehood from the United States and not from the 
individual states. Naturally then, they looked up to this 
government as the greater and superior. Mr. Lamar, a 
Southern orator of considerable renown well summarizes 
this question : "In 1787 the states were the creators of the 
Federal Government ; in 1861 the Federal Government was 
a creator of a large majority of states. In 1789 the Federal 
Government had derived all the powers delegated to it by 
the Constitution from the states. In 1861 a majority of the 
states derived all their powers and attributes as states from 
Congress under the Constitution. In 1789 the people of 
the United States were citizens of states originally sov- 
ereign and independent; in 1861 a vast majority of the 
people of the United States were citizens of states that 
were originally mere dependencies of the Federal Govern- 
ment, which was the author and giver of their political 
being." Thus, unconscious to most of the political leaders 
of that day, the centralization of the national government 
was rapidly increasing. 

It is held by some — and there seems to be much truth 
in the statement — that one of the greatest statesmen this 
country has ever produced was the motive force which 
separated the North and the South. This prominent, if 

74 



CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR 

somewhat unenviable position is given to John C. Calhoun, 
the skilled orator of the nineteenth century. Although 
having died some ten years before the war actually broke 
out, through his speeches, writings and wonderful debates 
he so instilled his ideas into the minds of the Southern 
people, that the South was already prepared for the fatal 
leap from the precipice to which he had led it. Calhoun 
was a constitutionalist, but he obeyed a greater power than 
the Constitution — the necessity of preserving society of 
which he was a part. His strength lay in believing in the 
wisdom and righteousness of the southern social organiza- 
tion. Although at all times he begged the northern speakers 
to drop the subject of slavery from their discussion, he 
himself was ever an insistent discusser. "The poor and 
uneducated are increasing ; there is no power in a republi- 
can government to repress them; their number and dis- 
orderly tempers will make them in the end efficient enemies 
of the men of property. They have the right to vote, they 
will finally control your elections, and by bad laws or by 
violence they will invade your houses and turn you out 
Education will do nothing for them; they will not give 
it to their children; it will do them no good if they do. 
They are hopelessly doomed as a mass to poverty, from 
generation to generation ; and from the political franchise 
they will increase in influence and desperation until they 
overturn you. The institution of slavery cuts off this evil 
by the root. The whole body of our servants, whether in 
the family or in the field, are removed from all influence 
upon the white class by the denial of all political rights." 

We, the people of the present day, can look back upon 
the great struggle of the sixties without arousing the same 
feelings that were experienced by the people immediately 
before the war. Then the slightest word or act would stir 
up opposition that was well nigh impossible to stop. And 
it was this lack of foresight by some that war was precipi- 
tated as soon as it was ; they seemed not to realize how high 
the feeling was between the different sections of the 

75 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

country. It was such books as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that 
caused resentment and hatred of the north in the southern 
mind. The reason is not hard to see and was but a natural 
consequence on account of the sentiments the book con- 
tained. Its object was to give an account of slave life in 
the South, but instead of portraying the average condi 
tions of the slaves, the authoress used for material the most 
extreme cases of a slave owner's cruelty, that she could 
find. Thus the influence of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," such a 
book that drew with irresistible power a picture of slavery 
which outside the South was accepted the world over as 
true of the whole, gave new force to the resistance to the 
fugitive-slave-law and swept the North into an opposition 
which culminated in the formation of the Republican 
party, "developed from an abstract antagonism into a con- 
crete civil war in Kansas, and, in the election of 1856, 
reared a spectre, the mere apprehension of which, to the 
South, was to end in secession." 

The first shock of war came early in October, 1859, 
when the country was startled by news of the seizure of the 
United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry by the well known 
fanatic John Brown. His object was to free the negroes; 
the result that actually happened was to increase the 
sentiment for separation between the two great sections of 
our country. It was the watchword for the South to arm 
themselves — to prepare for the bloody struggle that was to 
follow. Dr. Dabney writing immediately after the war, 
epitomized that episode in the following manner: "This 
mad attempt of a handful of vulgar cut-throats, and its 
condign punishment, would have been a very trivial affair 
to the southern people, but for the manner by which it 
was regarded by the people of the North. Their presses, 
pulpits, public meetings and conversations, disclosed such 
a hatred to the South and its institutions, as to lead 
them to justify the crime, involving as it did the most 
aggravated robbery, treason, and murder; to deny the 
right of Virginia to punish it ; to villify the state in conse- 

76 



CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR 

quence with torrents of abuse perfectly demoniacal; to 
threaten loudly the assassination of her magistrates for 
the performance of their duty; and to exalt the blood- 
thirsty fanatic who led the party, to a public apotheosis. 
When the people of the South witnessed these things, it 
caused a shock of grief and indignation. The most sober 
men saw in the event, insignificant in itself, a symptom of 
momentous importance, and recognized the truth that the 
grand collision was near at hand. Loyalty to the Union 
was still unbroken; and the purpose was universal, to act 
only on the defensive, and to fulfil to the end every obliga- 
tion to the Constitution." Such indeed was the result of 
what is known as the John Brown's Raid. Even if sincere 
in his purpose, could fail to have seen what a dire calamity 
would happen to such an undertaking. 

So far we have presented what might be called the early 
causes of the civil war. Now it is our desire to show the 
different events that directly preceded the conflict, and 
show how these brought the war on sooner than otherwise 
would have been the case. 

In the late part of the year 1860 the presidential elec- 
tion occurred. The democratic party was fearfully di- 
vided ; those of the North would not adhere to any platform 
that contained the extreme principles held by the southern 
section of the party; on the other hand the South would 
not accept the mild platform of the northern democrats. 
Consequently no nominee was selected at the Charleston 
Convention, and when the polls opened on election day the 
ballot contained the names of three democratic candidates 
for president — Douglas, representing the northern demo- 
crats, Bell and Breckenridge representing the two factions 
in the South. Hence, from such a division it was no sur- 
prise when Lincoln, the Republican candidate, was elected 
although Douglas came a close second as regards popular 
vote. If the democrats could only have made a compromise 
and nominated but one candidate the election, without a 
doubt, would have been theirs. 

77 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

In the meanwhile Buchanan was at the head of the 
national government. It was the incompetence of this one 
man, more than any other, that caused the South, or rather 
allowed the South to secede. He was unable to make up 
his mind to do anything, and always sought to work on 
the lines of least resistance, and was determined, he should 
have to leave the management of this terrible storm, of 
which he should have been the controlling force, to his 
successor. The hostility of the South to the Union, caused 
by Lincoln's election, should have been met right at the 
very start. If the forts at Charleston harbor, those along 
the Florida coast, the one at Mobile, Bay, and likewise 
those on the Mississippi Kiver had been reoccupied and 
fortified after they had been seized by the different states, 
the United States government would have been well pre- 
pared to hinder the southern states from any such rash 
action. Such a policy was not only expedient but was 
within the bounds of the central government to perform. 
The forts belonged to the Union not to the individual 
states; they were equipped with supplies and troops fur- 
nished and paid for out of the national treasury ; the states 
could not protest if they were manned by federal troops. 
This opportunity of putting a peaceful end to this intense 
excitement was woefully neglected by the dilatory presi- 
dent. The South took advantage of this fearful neglect, 
and before Lincoln was inaugurated on the fourth of 
March, every fort south of Mason and Dixon's line, with 
the exception of Sumpter, was occupied by the southern 
state militia. 

In connection with this might be mentioned Buchanan's 
cabinet. Of the whole number there was scarcely one upon 
whom he could depend for impartial advice. The majority 
of these officials were southern men, and consequently their 
Chief aim was to attain the sanction of the president to 
measures favorable to southern interests. And as the 
spirit of seccession strengthened, much evidence is shown 
that these men, supposed to represent the Union, were 

78 



CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR 



scarcely less than conspirators plotting for its downfall. 
"Many writers have depreciated applying the word 'con- 
spiracy' to the seccession movement; but if the word is 
suitable for a secret, long-continued and concerted move- 
ment, the term is just. On January 5th, Senators Davis 
and Brown of Mississippi; Hemphill and Wigfall, of 
Texas; Slidell and Banjamin, of Louisiana; Iverson and 
Toombs, of Georgia; Johnson, of Arkansas; Clay of Ala- 
bama; Yulee and Mallory, of Florida, met in Washington 
and passed resolutions for the immediate seccession of their 
respective states, and for a convention at Montgomery, 
Alabama, to meet not later than February 16, to organize a 
southern confederacy; they requested instructions from 
their friends as to whether the delegations were to remain 
fn Congress until March 4th, so as to defeat threatened 
hostile legislation, as one of them privately expressed it, 
"By remaining in our places * * * it is thought we can 
keep the hands of Mr. Buchanan tied and disable the 
Republicans from effecting any legislation which will 
strengthen the hands of the incoming administration." 
Extraordinary ethics which could permit men sworn to 
support the Constitution, and paid out of the Federal 
treasury, to use their official position to conspire for the 
downfall of their government." (Chad wick's Causes of the 
Civil War.) The aim of these southern leaders certainly 
succeeded; they not only prevented the national govern- 
ment from protecting its interests in the South, but it also 
gave the South sufficient time to prepare for the impending 
struggle which they saw no way to avoid. 

The election of Lincoln was the watchword for the 
South to withdraw from the Union. The reason for this 
seemed to be more of a personal antipathy for the man 
himself and not because of the principles or party he 
supported. They seemed to recognize in him a man of 
great capabilities, one that would not hesitate to do what 
he considered right. They knew that his sympathies were 
against slavery. But right here is where they misjudged 

79 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



the man. Lincoln although personally opposed 4:o slavery, 
had no power whatever to interfere in any way with slave 
states; he recognized their right to do as they pleased in 
this matter. The platform upon which he was elected was 
emphatic in asserting that such states were beyond the 
pale of the federal government, and its only point in regard 
to this question was that slavery should not be extended 
to the territories. His position was as follows : "I intend 
in that matter to accommodate the people in the several 
localities, if they themselves will allow me to accommodate 
them. In one word, I never have been, am not now, and 
probably never shall be in a mood of harassing the people 
either North or South. On the territorial question I am 
inflexible, * * * on that there is a difference between 
you and us ; and it is the only substantial difference. You 
think slavery is right and ought to be extended ; we think 
it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this neither 
has any just occasion to be angry with the other." (A 
Letter by President Lincoln to Mr. Gilmer of North Caro- 
lina. ) 

In his inaugural address we have these words: "The 
power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and 
possess the property and places belonging to the govern- 
ment, and to collect the duties and imports; but beyond 
what may be necessary for these objects there will be no 
invasion, no using of force against or among the people 
anywhere." Here we have the keynote of the situation; 
Lincoln claimed that it was his solemn duty to retake and 
hold the U. S. forts situated in the South; the southern 
leaders held that it was the right of the individual states 
to guard these points of advantage. Logical reasoning 
would seem to point that Lincoln was right in his reason- 
ing — but that does not come into the question. The South 
resisted and the great struggle for supremacy was started 
when the national flag was fired upon at Fort Sumpter. 

The war was on, and but little did the South, with its 
traditions and ancient institutions, realize what a moment- 

80 



CAUSES OP THE CIVIL, WAR 



ous struggle it had entered upon. They trusted in their 
courage, in their cause and not in their power for success. 
"Every pure and noble man, every most devout soldier, the 
generous southern women, the virtuous and cultivated 
citizens, the incorruptible judges of the law, the venerable 
and holy ministers of religion, all these committed their 
lives and fortunes, and sacred honor to the defence of the 
Confederate States, as one man." The fight was inevitable, 
but never in the history of nations has such a struggle ever 
been recorded — never before has any governmental prin 
ciple caused the shedding of such streams of blood ! 



81 



THE SECESSION OF VIRGINIA. 

By Ernest Trice Thompson — 1914. 

The war of 1861, call it by what name you will, was the 
result of many forces. The secession of the Southern States 
is variously explained, and in the casual judgment, the 
reason for the action of each is the same. The hasty gen- 
eralizer will assure you that the South — meaning thereby 
the whole of the seceding states — flew to arms in order to 
extend slavery into the territories or to prevent its threat- 
ened destruction within her own borders, or that no longer 
in sympathy with the ideals of the Kepublic, she wantonly 
desired its destruction. Whether or not this be true of the 
Cotton States we need not discuss. To Virginia, and in 
consequence to the people of Virginia, the insinuation is a 
grave injustice. It was on the Old Dominion that the 
brunt of the conflict rested. She furnished its great 
leaders, she furnished thousands of the flower of her 
youth. Her lands were rent, and torn asunder, but to 
charge that her sons were given to the sword, and her 
bosom as the battle-ground for the fiercest was of modern 
times because for sooth "Virginia revered the institution 
of slavery, and from selfish motives fought to make more 
sure the muniments of its existence; that she desired the 
destruction of the union, and the degenerate abandonment 
of the inspiring dreams of liberty, and progress, which it 
was designed to assure" is a proposition as false as it is 
unwarrantable. Of a truth Virginia could not help but 
cast in her lot with that of her more impetuous sisters to 
the South; otherwise, she violated both duty and honor. 
The exercise of powers in her conception clearly adverse to 

83 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

the principals of divine and human right, on which the 
Republic had been based, made clear her way. For in 
Virginia's eyes the right of the Cotton States to withdraw 
from the Union which they had formed, inexpedient though 
it be, was God-given, and inalienable and coercion was 
tyranny. "Thus her sense of honor, as well as the im- 
perilled right of self-government, impelled her to battle." 

Let us consider whether "Virginia seceded either in 
order that slavery might be extended into the territories 
or that it might be maintained within her own borders; 
and note first her record both as a territory and as a state 
in regard to the institution. 

Slaves were introduced steadily into Virginia during 
the one hundred and fifty odd years of her colonial exist- 
ence. But it was done over, and in spite of the protests, the 
appeals, and the statutes of the Colonial Legislature and of 
her most prominent citizens. "The great personages in- 
terested in the slave trade proved more influential with the 
king than the prayers of his imperilled people." No other 
consideration was more potent than this position of the 
crown in regard to the slave traffic in placing Virginia in 
the fore-front of the Revolution. Hardly had Independence 
been declared than the General Assembly of the new state 
prohibited the further continuance of slave importation; 
thus, to Virginia, falls the honor of being the first com- 
munity of modern times to prohibit this pernicious traffic. 
In the Ordinance of 1784, Jefferson attempted to prohibit 
slavery from all national territory. Three years later an 
ordinance was passed eliminating it from the Northwest 
Territory, and this final result was due largely to the work 
of Virginia. Projects for the emancipation of the slaves 
were rendered more difficult with every fresh importation. 
With the adoption of the Federal Constitution there was 
offered the supreme opportunity for suppressing the traflic, 
yet the slave trade was legalized for the further period of 
twenty years, and this was done by "a bargain between 
New England, and the far South," and despite the 

84 



THE SECESSION OF VIRGINIA 

vehement resistance of Virginia. Henceforth hers was the 
ceaseless task of guarding against further importation 
from home or abroad, of devising some practicable plan 
for gradually emancipating the slaves in her midst, and 
meanwhile to continue day by day the work of teaching 
these children of the Dark Continent an intelligible lan- 
guage, the use of tools, the necessity for labor, and the rudi- 
ments of morality, and religion." 

Nonetheless the attitude of Virginia in regard to the 
slave traffic was one of uncompromising hostility, and her 
sons sought actively not only to restrict its growth, but to 
drive it from the seas. At the first meeting of the Con- 
tinental Congress, the representatives of Virginia had de- 
clared "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great 
object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily 
introduced in their infant state." This view continued to 
be ascribed to by the ablest leaders of the State down to 
the outbreak of the Civil War. 

In the meantime Virginia began to permit and to en- 
courage gradual emancipation, which under British rule 
had been seriously restricted. Under the law of 1785 
slaves brought into the State were allowed their freedom 
at the expiration of twelve months, and many statutes were 
enacted protecting the rights of the blacks. As the result 
of these acts the number of the free negroes increased 
rapidly, until the presence of a large number of free blacks 
possessing neither the restrictions of the slaves nor the 
privileges of the whites began to constitute a serious prob- 
lem. Nevertheless the work of emancipation continued and 
the hostility to the institution of slavery became more 
widespread among the people. This anti-slavery sentiment 
continued up to the year 1832, when it received a severe set 
back by the tragic event of August, 1831. To the disastrous 
effects of this occurrence must be added the reactionary in- 
fluence of the Abolitionists and of the failure of the Gen- 
eral Assembly in 1832 to devise any plan for the gradual 
abolition of the slaves. 

85 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

The momentous event of the summer of 1831 was the 
Southampton insurrection, led by Nat Turner, in which 
fifty-seven whites, mostly women and children, were 
brutally massacred. The event seemed the more porten- 
tous when it was declared that Turner was a slave to 
whom the privilege of education had been accorded, and 
that his chief lieutenant was a free negro; nor was the 
suspicion absent of instigation without the State. When 
the General Assembly met in December it was at once be- 
sieged with petitions, some praying that the free blacks 
might be removed from the State, others that some scheme 
might be devised for gradual emancipation. The Assembly 
gave its careful consideration to a number of abolition pro- 
posals, but found none practicable. This failure of the 
General Assembly brought despair to thousands of Vir- 
ginians, who had sought relief in this direction. With the 
lesson of the Nat Turner insurrection still fresh in their 
minds, "many accepted the institution as permanent, and 
busied themselves marshalling arguments in vindication of 
its rightfulness and in refuting with growing bitterness 
the assaults of its opponents." 

An even more powerful influence on the attitude of 
anti-slavery men was the activity of the Abolitionists in 
the North. "Unlike the anti-slavery men of former years, 
this new school not only attacked the institution of slavery 
but the morality of slave holders and their sympathizers 
In their fierce arraignments not only were tlhe humane 
and considerate linked in infamy with the cruel and in- 
tolerant, but the whole population of the slave owning 
states, their civilization and their morals were the object of 
unrelenting and incessant assaults. Thus thousands sin- 
cerely desiring the abolition of slavery were driven to 
silence or into the ranks of its apologists in the widespread 
and indignant determination of Virginians to resent these 
libels upon their character and defeat these attempts to 
excite servile insurrections." 

Yet in spite of such conditions the work of emancipa- 

86 



THE SECESSION OF VIRGINIA 

tion was continued ; convinced that in dispersion or colon- 
ization beyond her borders lay the surest and only road to 
ultimate emancipation and to relief from the racial prob- 
lems incidental to slavery, the Virginian Assembly was 
most liberal in her assistance, and contributed large funds 
for this purpose. The leading people of Virginia were 
active both in the work of the American Colonization So- 
ciety and the Colonization Society of Virginia, established 
in 1828. In addition, many slaveholders emancipated and 
colonized their slaves out of their own means. The entire 
work was hindered moreover both by the violent pro-slavery 
men of the South and by the Abolitionists of the North, by 
the latter, among other reasons, because such an allevia- 
tion of conditions rendered more distant the day of univer- 
sal and immediate abolition. But Virginia had reached 
the conclusion that by no other method was abolition prac- 
ticable. The principal of emancipation had not been 
abandoned but rationalized. And to this view subscribed 
the sanest minds of the time, for instance, Jefferson, Clay, 
Lincoln. A little investigation will amply demonstrate 
that the great mass of prominent Virginians from Wash- 
ington to Lee were decidedly opposed to the institution of 
slavery. The fact that in spite of statutes and the efforts 
of masters and others to settle freed slaves at points be- 
yond the state, the Federal census of 1860 gives the number 
within her borders at fifty-eight thousand and forty-two 
would indicate the real attitude of the people. 

It is a common misconception that the great majority 
of Virginians were slave holders, and that emancipation 
was opposed from pecuniary or selfish motives. Yet out 
of a white population of 1,047,299, only 52,128 were owners 
of slaves, and of these one-half held only from one to four 
slaves, while but 114 persons in the whole state owned as 
many as a hundred each. The slaves again were not 
distributed throughout the state, but were localized in well 
defined districts. The body of the people were small 
farmers, wage earners, mechanics, merchants and profes- 

87 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

sional men. They held no pecuniary interest in slavery 
nor did even the poorest fear for "the preservation of their 
social status" from its abolition. 

Furthermore the existence of the institution was a 
positive disadvantage to the material prosperity of Vir- 
ginia. Not only this, but it was recognized as such by the 
people themselves, as can be verified by the published senti- 
ments of Virginians during the three decades preceding 
the War. "Not all of the people of Virginia lived in a 
Fool's Paradise. They balanced the known burdens of 
slavery against the anticipated burdens of emancipation — 
they compared the dangers and losses of present conditions 
with the problems of a future in which the slaves would be 
free, yet still in their midst; but by no calculation could 
the continuance of slavery be upheld because of the 
pecuniary benefits derived from its existence." 

Yet it is charged that though slave labor was not profit- 
able in Virginia, the rearing of slaves for sale in other 
states had become so, and that its advantages had destroyed 
all sentiment in favor of emancipation, until in 1861 the 
people "stood ready to fight for the maintenance of slavery 
and the inter-state slave trade." Yet no offense so filled 
the people of Virginia with utter loathing and contempt 
as that of buying and selling slaves, nor could any ostra- 
cism be more complete than that practiced against the 
slave-dealer and his unfortunate descendants, a fact at- 
tested to by Abraham Lincoln himself. It is impossible 
to reconcile the existence of such a public sentiment with 
the charge that Virginia had degenerated into a "mother of 
slave breeders." As a matter of fact the feeling in Virginia 
against slavery did not decline, as charged, with the inven- 
tion of the cotton gin and the abolition of the foreign slave 
traffic, but grew continuously stronger until 1832, at which 
time it received the setback previously mentioned. Un- 
doubtedly there were men who despite the opprobium at- 
tached were willing to buy slaves in Virginia and sell them 
at a profit elsewhere. But the number of slaves who left 

88 



THE SECESSION OF VIRGINIA 

Virginia annually, all of whom are erroneously assigned 
to this nefarious traffic, was composed much more of the 
ex-slaves of the colonization societies, slaves accompanying 
their masters, who each year emigrated in great numbers 
to the newer states of Kentucky, Missouri, and the South, 
and slaves who were transferred merely to other planta- 
tions. 

As further evidence that the people of Virginia did not 
fight for the "protection of slavery and slave property" it 
need only be recalled how small was the proportion of the 
population who were slave holders. Significant is the fact 
that the proportion of slave holders enlisted in the South- 
ern armies was even smaller. Nor is it true, as sometimes 
charged, that men who owned no slaves, were yet led into 
battle by slave owners. The most notable leaders furnished 
by the state, including such men as Robert E. Lee, Stone- 
wall Jackson, Joseph E. Johnson, A. P. Hill and J. E. B. 
Stuart, were not slave holders. 

Emancipation in Virginia as has been stated was em- 
barrassed by insuperable difficulties. First must be con- 
sidered the legal rights of the slave holders and their credi- 
tors. The slave holders could not be justly deprived of the 
labor on which they depended without due compensation. 
Furthermore on them would devolve the expense of caring 
for "the poor, the afflicted, and the criminal classes of the 
ex-slaves, not to mention the cost of educating the rising 
generation.'' The creditors likewise must be considered. 
From what source was such a fund available? In the 
second place the moral and physical wellbeing of the slaves 
discouraged emancipation. The freed slaves both in Vir- 
ginia, and in the North were confessedly in a poorer con- 
dition than their brothers in bonds. Education and train- 
ing must go hand in hand with freedom, <and for the im- 
mense outlay necessary Virginia was admittedly not pre- 
pared. Gradual colonization was the only rational remedy, 
and this remedy was extended up to the time of the Civil 
War. Again there were the social and political interests 

89 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



of the State. No one could picture the outcome of uni- 
versal emancipation, or how the presence of such numbers 
of freedomers would affect the welfare of the State. The 
presence of a comparatively few free negroes in the States 
of the North could offer no assurance, while the voice of 
history was ominous with forboding. President Lincoln in 
pleading for the support of the North for his first Procla- 
mation of Emancipation, in concluding, called to mind that, 
after all, the North could decide for itself whether it would 
receive the freed men, but with the South there was no 
alternation. "To these inherent difficulties should be 
superadded the lack of free discussion, and the growth of 
bitterness and reactionary sentiments occasioned largely 
by partisan and ofttimes criminal investigation coming 
from beyond the state." 

The three points of conflict in regard to the institution 
of slavery were "the right and obligation of the Federal 
Government to prevent by legislation slaveholders from 
emigrating into the territories with their slaves; the duty 
of the Federal Government to provide through its officials 
for the capture and return to their owners of fugitive 
slaves, and the existence or abolition of slavery in the 
Southern States." To come to a clearer understanding of 
whether or not the secession of Virginia was prompted 
by a desire to extend or perpetuate the institution, con- 
sider what were the relations to the subject of the Federal 
Government, the Eepublican party, certain of the Northern 
States, and the Abolitionists. 

It is clear that Virginia had no differences with the 
Federal Government in regard to these points of issue. 

As for the Eepublican party, in spite of pro-campaign 
declarations, "months before the date of Virginia's seces- 
sion, the KepubUcan Party gave unequivocal assurance of 
its purpose to accord slaveholders the right to carry slaves 
into the territories" ; the party did not repeal the Fugitive 
Slave laws and Lincoln pledged their enforcement; while 
the platform itself stated its intention to interfere in no 

90 



THE SECESSION OF VIRGINIA 



way with the institution in those states where it was legally 
recognized, and Congress on meeting adopted a constitu- 
tional amendment to this effect. 

Difficulty with certain of the Northern States arose 
over their failure to abide by the Fugitive Slave Laws and 
the passage of Personal Liberty Laws in direct contradic- 
tion to the former. Much ill feeling was engendered by this 
attitude, and even the support of the Federal Government 
was inadequate to protect the interests of the South. Yet 
such a state of affairs cannot be considered as an incentive 
to secession. Its effects were rather to the contrary. "In 
the Union some protection was secured to the state with 
respect to the rights thus menaced. Outside of the Union 
every such benefit was lost, and the state stood absolutely 
without redress." 

Nor was secession a cure for the grievances of Vir- 
ginia or her slaveholders against the Abolitionists. These 
tireless agitators sought heart and soul to destroy the slave 
institution. In the stormiest days before the outbreak of 
hostilities, While others cried peace, they denounced the 
Union and demanded slavery's immediate abolition. The 
only defense of the South lay on the "aegis of the constitu- 
tion." The Abolitionists, well aware of this fact, advocated 
zealously the dissolution of the Union and rejoiced at the 
news of secession. 

"By secession the South would forfeit all the benefits 
of the Fugitive Slave law. By secession she would sur- 
render her interest in the territories and all claim of right 
to introduce slaves therein. By secession she would lose 
the strong arm of the National Government to defend her 
against assaults, whether by lawless bands or the legisla- 
tive enactments of hostile states. Even with respect to 
servile insurrections her withdrawal from the Union would 
in no way abate the danger, but only lessen her power to 
cope with the problem." It was not to preserve slavery 
that Virginia seceded, but to preserve her self respect. It 
was not to resist a Proclamation of Emancipation that 

91 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

Virginia seceded, but to resist a Proclamation of War, in 
which she was called upon to attack the constitutional 
rights of state supremacy. The first Proclamation of 
Emancipation was to free the slaves only of those states 
which remained in rebellion. Virginia's attitude was not 
changed, for indeed it was not affected. It is clear that 
Virginia did not secede in order to extend slavery into the 
territories, or to prevent its threatened destruction with- 
in her own borders. 

Nor did Virginia secede from a wanton desire to destroy 
the Union or from hostility to the ideals of its founders. 
It is needless to recall the supreme part played by Vir- 
ginia in making the Union. With such a past would she 
with wanton hands destroy the Union of which she was 
in large measure the creator? Rather did not John Janney, 
President of the Virginia Convention in 1861, speak the 
sentiment of Virginia when he declared "Causes which have 
passed, and are daily passing into history, which will set 
its seal upon them, but which I do not mean to review have 
brought the constitution and the Union into imminent 
peril, and Virginia has come to the resue. It is what 
the whole country expected of her ; her pride as well as her 
patriotism, her interest as well as her honor, called upon 
her with an emphasis she could not disregard to save the 
monuments of her own glory." 

Virginia, foremost among the States, sought to recon- 
cile the opposing factions. South Carolina had hardly 
seceded, and the Cotton States were still considering simi- 
lar measures, when the General Assembly of Virginia met 
in special session. The precipitate action of South Caro- 
lina was deplored, though the right of secession was af- 
firmed, and resolutions were passed inviting the States of 
the Union "to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to 
adjust the present unhappy controversies" by appointing 
peace commissioners to meet in the City of Washington. 
Commissioners were also despatched to Washington and to 
the States of the South to urge peaceful procedure. The 

92 



THE SECESSION OF VIRGINIA 

peace conference, representing twenty states, presided over 
by John Tyler of Virginia, adjourned with no results. "The 
pathetic appeals" of Virginia's representatives were in 
marked contrast with many expressions coming from her 
sister States, North and South. At the same time, despite 
her protests, the Cotton States declared for secession. 

Meanwhile the General Assembly had provided for a 
convention "to take under consideration the problems and 
dangers of the hour." In the election of delegates, the 
people of Virginia showed unmistakably that they were 
strongly opposed to secession. Had the election gone 
otherwise it was not doubted that all of the slave states 
would have taken action. 

This convention of anti-secession sympathies waited to 
determine the policy of the incoming administration to- 
ward the seceding states before themselves taking action. 
Charles Francis Adams, alluding to the crisis says: "So 
now the issue shifted. It became a question not of slavery, 
or of the wisdom, or even the expediency of secession, but 
of the right of the National Government to coerce a sov- 
ereign state. This, at the time, was well understood." No 
one doubted what Virginia's course would be if she were 
called upon to decide for or against coercion. 

The inaugural address of Lincoln was variously con- 
strued. To some it foreshadowed coercion, to others mod- 
eration. But the balance of power in the Virginia Assem- 
bly "clung tenaciously to the hope that some adjustment 
might yet be perfected between the authorities of the 
Union and those of the seceded states, and thus the al- 
ternative of submitting to coercion or seceding from the 
Union might never be presented to the people of Virginia." 
For a month and a half the Convention debated, urged one 
way and the other by the frantic appeals of both South and 
North. 

On the fourth of April it defeated overwhelmingly a 
resolution to secede. On the 15th Lincoln issued his' 
proclamation calling for an army of seventy-five thousand 

93 



STUDIES OK THE OLD SOUTH 

men. Two days later, "after strong men had spoken for or 
against secession with sorrowful hearts and in voices 
trembling with emotion," the Convention passed the ordi- 
nance of secession. A month later the action of the Con- 
vention was ratified by a vote of 128,884 to 32,134. "This 
action was the logical and inevitable result of the Presi- 
dent's Proclamation." The people of Virginia believed 
some that it was a constitutional, others that it was a 
revolutionary, right to secede. No body of men had the 
right to invade such territory, or defeat such aspirations 
by the sword. Rather than draw their swords against a 
free people, they would draw in their defense. 

Thus was precipitated Virginia's secession. To many 
it was a gladsome event, but to the majority of her people 
it was sad and pathetic. Yet sorrow was mingled with 
determination, and nobly did Virginia defend her soil. 



94 



HALF A MAN. 



HALF A MAN. 

The Free Negro in Virginia 1619-1865. 

By R. E. Warwick — 1915. 

The history of the free negro in the slave States formed 
one of the most interesting and yet most illusive chapters 
in the annals of slavery in this country. And it seems 
especially appropriate to picture the condition of the free 
black in Virginia, the State which initially received the 
African, and in which the institution of slavery was per- 
haps the most firmly established. Here the negro first 
made his appearance as a servant in bondage and as a free 
man; here he first emplanted his lazy dialect, his super- 
stitions, his charming folk-lore; here he most thoroughly 
cultivated a need for his presence, — and here, if anywhere, 
conditions approached the ideal for his existence. Through 
hearsay and tradition, we are tolerably familiar with the 
negro as a servant and a slave, but the position occupied 
by the free negro in ante-bellum times is surprisingly 
obscure. 

The conditions which made this question so unique and 
peculiarly interesting in Virginia were that in this State 
only was there so large a free colored element living in a 
society so vitally connected with and dependent upon slav- 
ery. It requires little imagination to see why a free negro 
population numbering many thousand between 1800 and 
I860, and living among a slave population almost as num- 
erous as the dominant white element, created economical 
and social problems far more perplexing than those of New 
England, nor did a free negro element in a population 
of one to about eight slaves, act in any sense as an aid to 
facilitating the association of the two races. From 1619 

97 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



when "About the last of August came in a Dutch man of 
Warre that sold us twenty negars,"* until the middle of 
the eighteenth century no satisfactory statistics of the 
free negro in the colony (as Virginia then was) can be 
obtained. After 1782, however, rough estimates may be 
replaced by figures from the States' enumeration. The 
unparalleled increase in the free negro class which fol- 
lowed the repeal in 1782 of certain restrictions on manu- 
mission, and also the relative numbers of free colored per- 
sons, slaves and whites in Virginia may be seen from the 
following table, prepared from Federal decennial censuses : 

1790 1820 1840 1860 

Free Colored 12,866 36,875 49,841 58,042 

Slave 292,627 425,148 448,988 490,865 

White 442,117 603,681 740,968 1,047,299 



Total 747,610 1,065,404 1,239,797 1,596,206 

From these figures, however, one fails to get a correct 
conception of the significance of the presence of the free 
black, unless the question of his distribution in the State 
is considered. Had the colored population been equally 
scattered throughout the white population, the effect 
would have been different, — but in the mountainous half 
of the State, which even as early as 1800 contained half of 
the whites, free negroes were so scarce as to be an almost 
negligible factor, whereas from the census of 1860, it ap- 
pears that the free negroes in the Tidewater and Piedmont 
sections were between 1/6 and 1/7 of the colored and 
about 1/14 of the entire population. Again, as between 
rural and urban communities, the latter, as might be ex- 
pected had the larger share of free blacks. As an example, 
— in 1790, when the average ratio of free negroes to slaves 
and whites in the Tidewater section was 1 to 18, this ele- 
ment in Petersburg constituted y± of the colored popula- 
tion and were to the whites as 1 to 4%. Thus it is apparent 



*Works of Captain John Smith — page 541. 

98 



HALF A MAN 



that the free negro population was concentrated largely in 
the eastern section of the State and in addition came in 
contact with only about one-half of the white population. 
As to the origin of the free negro class, there were many 
popular misconceptions. We find many contending that 
the first negroes brought into Virginia in 1619 were from 
the very outset regarded and held as slaves for life; that 
they, and all Africans who came after them, experienced 
immediately upon entering this State a perpetual loss of 
liberty; and that the free negro class was nothing but a 
divergence from, or a by-product of, slavery, depending 
for its origin and existence upon the distintegration of this 
institution. Such erroneous ideas may be righted by re- 
calling the elementary and fundamental differences be- 
tween the terms "servant" and "slave," — the loss of liberty 
of the servant being temporary, the bondage of the slave 
perpetual. For the white population in the Virginia colony 
had not been familiar in England with any system of 
slavery, and had only developed in this Commonwealth a 
system of servitude or indenture similar to that in the 
mother country ; — hence the first Africans became servants 
in the condition to the status of white servants, being en- 
titled to freedom after a certain term of service. Now, 
whenever according to the laws or customs of a colony, 
negroes came to be held as servants without a future right 
to freedom, then may be found the beginnings of slavery in 
that colony. In Virginia, custom soon supplied all the 
authority that appeared to be necessary. Savigney says, 
however, "When the progress of the times calls for a new 
institution * * * there is necessarily a period of transi- 
tion in which the law is uncertain and statute law is re- 
quired to put an end to the uncertainty." The time of 
transition in Virginia from slavery sanctioned by custom- 
law to slavery sanctioned by statute-law was the decade 
between 1660 and 1670. Knowing, therefore, that true 
slavery developed only slightly before 1660, the date of the 
first act recognizing it, it is certain that the institution of 

99 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



servitude and indenture gave rise during the period from 
1619 to 1660 to the earliest beginnings of the free negro 
class. 

But by far the most prolific source from which this 
class recruited its numbers after 1670, — and even before 
that date, — was the practice of manumission. There were 
two general methods by which slaves in Virginia were set 
free during the life of the institution of slavery : — namely, 
public manumission, i. e., by act of legislature ; and private 
manumission, — by last will and testament, or by deed. The 
former method does not require detailed explanation. The 
Colonial House of Burgesses, as well as the State Legisla- 
ture later, inferred from its right to make, its right to un- 
make, a slave, and this right, though seldom exercised, went 
unchallenged. But what was the origin of the right of a 
private individual to bestow civil liberties and privileges 
upon a slave who in the eyes of the law, was a thing? The 
first statute which recognized the slave-owner's right to 
make free men of slaves was enacted in 1691, but the fact 
that the act was a rigid restriction upon the right shows 
that this law did not originate the privilege. In fact we 
must of necessity return again to a study of the close 
relations of indentured servitude and slavery in the seven- 
teenth century, for an explanation of the practice. Before 
slavery as an institution had fully diverged from servitude 
by indenture, it borrowed from the latter, the practice of 
manumission by individual owners, — for under this system 
the term of servitude for which the servant was bound out, 
not the servant himself, was regarded as property. Thus 
when a slave was discharged with a pledge from his master 
that no further service would be demanded, he went forth 
as a free man just as did a servant freed at the expiration 
of a period of contract servitude. 

Whether the frequency of private manumission in the 
seventeenth century was a result more of a strong body 
of sentiment favorable to freedom than of an immature 
development of the system of slavery is a question not to be 

100 



HALF A MAN 



answered with precision. Certain it is, however, that by 
the year 1690, the free negro class had so expanded as to 
have become an object of fear and suspicion, and from this 
date until economic conditions in the nineteenth century 
automatically checked the practice, various laws were en- 
forced restricting manumission. That there was an under- 
lying sentiment in favor of it, however, may be seen from 
an isolated case, — for instance, the removal in 1782 of 
restraints, was like the sudden destruction of a dam before 
the increasing impetus of a swollen stream. The free 
negro population in the State at that time, less than 3,000, 
but the product of a century and a quarter's growth, — was 
more than doubled in the space of two years. But the 
most far-reaching cause for the general decline of private 
manumission was the radical change in the economical 
aspects of slave-holding in the last sixty years of its 
existence. The invention of the cotton gin, the abolition of 
the foreign slave trade in 1808, coupled with the rapid 
growth of the domestic slave trade, each in its way created 
a demand for Virginia slaves, — and money, then as now, 
often conquered sentiment. Thus after 1800 manumission 
as an agent for augmenting the free negro class was almost 
negligible. 

Rough as was the road to freedom for the African during 
the period between 1619 and 1865, still more rocky and 
beset with pitfalls was the path which the negro, surren- 
dered to his own care, was forced to travel. A glimpse of 
the eonditons — legal, social and economical, — of the free 
negro, whether he remained in the State or attempted to 
migrate, will bring to us a slight realization of his posi- 
tion as "half a man." In considering the first, it is well 
to note that the legal status of free individuals involves the 
usual two-fold relation of persons to the State, — that of 
receiver of protection from the government, and that of 
active participant in its affairs. With regard to the 
status of the free negro, in this double relation, the ques- 
tion which first demands an answer is : What protection 

101 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 



was afforded him in the rights of property and in the 
enjoyment of liberty? The common-law right to own and 
alienate property was at an early date recognized; — and 
it stands unique as the one privilege which suffered fewer 
limitations in the possession of the free negro than any of 
the others usually regarded as fundamental to a free 
status. The most remarkable of his rights, however, was 
that of owning slaves. Indeed for more than twenty years, 
from the time of the free negroes' first appearance in the 
courts, there was no legal restriction upon the right to own 
indentured white servants, — and such reversal of the usual 
order was attempted, if we may make inferences from legis- 
lation against such practice in 1670. Not before 1832 were 
free negroes forbidden to own negro slaves and this right 
was quite commonly exercised. Complete as was the right 
of the free colored man to property, he was never-the-less 
denied, — and for obvious reasons, — the ownership of dogs, 
"fire-locks," poisonous drugs, intoxicants, and (after 1832) 
slaves. 

But the laws of Virginia extended their protection not 
only to the property of the free negro, but to his life and 
liberty as well. In many particulars, however, they dif- 
fered directly or were differently interpreted from those 
shielding the white population, — as a remarkable example 
of which may be cited the principle that in cases in which 
the freedom of a negro was disputed, the burden of proof 
was upon the negro to show that he was free. Contrary 
to the recognized English law, he was regarded as guilty 
until his innocence was established by evidence. Again, 
the free negro suffered penalties for minor offenses, similar 
to those inflicted on slaves for like violations. Through- 
out the entire period, whipping, "not exceeding thirty-nine 
lashes on the bare back, well laid on,"* instead of a fine as 
for a white offender, was the usual punishment for the free 
negro as well as for his kinsman in bondage. To us the 
privilege to go from place to place appears as a privilege 



♦Virginia Code 1782 — page 428. 

102 



HALF A MAN 



fundamental to real freedom, — yet in few other respects 
was the liberty of the free negro more restricted than in this. 
Still, among a slave population, a roving negro element was 
beyond suffrance. Possibly the most extraordinary privi- 
lege possessed by any person in the United States during 
the continuance of slavery was the free black's right to 
choose a master and go into voluntary bondage. Liberty 
to become a slave was one variety which a white man could 
not have enjoyed had he wished to. It might be surmised 
that this right was of a type higher than the fundamental, 
inherent rights enunciated by the constitutional fathers, 
for in as much as "the status of the offspring follows the 
status of the mother"* a free negress who exercised it 
deprived her offspring of liberty, and subjected it to per- 
petual tyranny. It may be remarked, however, that hard as 
was the lot of the ante-bellum free negro, the courts had 
few petitioners seeking the refuge of slavery. 

The second question, no less essential to an adequate 
treatment of the free black's legal status is that involving 
the extent of his participation in the affairs of government. 
From a very early date in the history of the colony up to 
the close of the War between the States, military service 
was required of the free man of color, — a special act 
allowing negroes in the state militia to keep one gun. In 
the matter of taxation, too, the free negro stood in a rela- 
tion to the government as its supporter. Far from being- 
exempt from taxes, he was, as the records show, usually 
required to pay a higher poll tax than the white man. Yet 
while we see that the negro was in every way treated as a 
supporter of the government, his services in official capaci- 
ties were neither demanded nor accepted in Virginia. Even 
as early as 1670 his rights of suffrage were restricted, and 
in 1732 a law was formulated which specifically denied 
him the right to vote. Thus the interesting query arises : 
Was the free negro really a citizen, either of the Common- 
wealth or of the United States? He was undoubtedly a 



*Virginia Act 1662. 

103 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

subject of both, but if by the term "citizen'* we mean a 
subject having full civil and political rights, this in- 
dividual was a citizen of neither, — he was after 1732 "a 
man without a country." He could not bear witness ex- 
cept in cases involving only negroes; he could not be a 
juror or a judge; he could not use firearms without special 
permission, and even though he owned property and paid 
taxes, he could not vote or hold office. Half a man was he 
indeed ! 

If prejudice did not exist in the minds of the white 
inhabitants of Virginia against persons of the black race 
before the coming of the negro, it was not long in springing 
up after the two races met on American soil. This preju- 
dice against the man of color was not on account of his 
servile condition however, — for in that respect he was on a 
par with a great number of whites. Conversely, therefore, 
freedom was not sufficient to make the negro servant or the 
negro slave the social equal of the white man. By the 
middle of the seventeenth century there were negroes who 
had been set free from all forms of legal servitude, but they 
were not absorbed into the mass of free population. Their 
color adhered to them in freedom as in servitude, and the 
indelible marks and characteristics of their race remained 
unchanged. Chastellux, in travelling through Virginia in 
1783, noticed the inferior social status of this class and 
wrote : "In the present case, it is not only the slave that 
is beneath his master, it is the negro that is beneath the 
white man. No emancipation, no act of franchise will or 
ever can efface this distinction." 

And so the negro was compelled to turn elsewhere than 
to the white man for social concourse. Outside of his own 
class, the most congenial companion of the free black was 
found among his kinsmen in bondage. The larger part of 
the free men of color met and mingled with negro slaves 
on a plane of almost perfect social equality. To the free 
man, there were lacking the better education, the higher 
standard of wants, and the greater opportunities of acquir- 

104 



HALF A MAX 



ing wealth and position, necessary to supply an actual 
basis of superiority, and to give him a higher social rank 
than that occupied by the slave. And as for the so-called 
negro "aristocracy/' we search" in vain for such a classifica- 
tion based on the superiority of the free negroes over slaves 
or vice-versa, — but find. that such distinction was founded 
rather on the ascendency of the wealthy planter's "serv- 
ants" over the "poor man's nigger." 

Throughout the period of the colony when the number 
of free blacks was comparitively small, — and even in the 
nineteenth century before the active propagation of anti- 
slavery doctrines, — there existed little if any feeling 
against the education of this class. Few, 'tis true, had the 
opportunity or desire to take advantage of this privilege, 
yet when the agitation for the abolition of slavery became 
acute, and anti-slavery tracts and pamphlets were in wide 
circulation in the State, the friends of the institution of 
slavery became apprehensive of the evil which might result 
from the reading of such literature by the free negro, — 
and in consequence brought about legislation to prevent 
this class from acquiring a knowledge of books. In con- 
nection with this law, we cannot resist mentioning an 
amusing incident as gathered from the records of the 
Legislature. Some of the better class of freemen, not 
wishing their children to be totally deprived of learning, 
sought a means of sending them to the North for education, 
but complained to the Legislature about the inconvenience 
which this imposed, very thoughtfully adding that they 
preferred not sending them where "they might imbibe bad 
doctrines." The Legislature refused them the request for 
a school in Virginia, and with a finesse of tact quite sur- 
prising in such a body, attended in. its own way to the 
danger of imbibing bad principles, — it withdrew from the 
negro even the privilege of educating his children beyond 
the limits of the State ! No wonder, then, that quite gener- 
ally throughout the two and a half centuries under review, 

105 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

free negroes could merely make their mark in affixing their 
signatures to records of business or legal transactions. 

There were in Virginia before 1665 many who con- 
demned the free negro as being not only socially degraded 
but economically worthless. Fortunately, however, we 
may form an estimate of the value and merits of the free 
black as an economic factor from other and less biased 
sources. It should be remembered that, though repeatedly 
attempted, all efforts to remove him from Virginia failed 
utterly, — and the chief object in the way of those efforts 
was then, as at the present time, the demand for the labor 
of his class. Moreover, any conception that he was crushed 
in the scramble for employment between the slave and the 
white laborer may at the outset be dismissed. In fact, it 
was the latter class that suffered, — first because the black, 
on account of his standard of living, flourished on wages 
smaller than the white could accept and live, and second, 
because the free negro, being as a rule of an obedient, tract- 
able disposition and respectful of personal authority, was 
more easily directed, and therefore a more desirable serv- 
ant. An interesting side-light on the feelings of the white 
laborer in viw of these conditions is shown by the follow- 
ing clipping from a letter written in 1845 : "Those whose 
hearts are now sickened when they look into the carpenters' 
shops, the blacksmiths' shops and the shops of all the 
different trades in Richmond and see them crowded with 
negro workmen, are ready to quit in disgust,"* -The free 
negro had, it is certain, taken an important and permanent 
place in the economic life of Virginia. 

While it is true that of free laborers of all kinds, the 
free negro was the best fitted to survive under the adverse 
conditions confronting him, and that he appropriated for 
himself the better share of employment open to free 
laborers, the fact remains that a proportionately large class 
of free blacks was without employment. The character of 
the negro, his natural propensities, and the result of legis- 



*Richmond Whig, December 11, 1845. 

106 



HALF A MAN 



lation itself, made it inevitable that a portion of this popu- 
lation should become vagabonds. It is to be regretted, 
however, that many contemporary critics judged the moral 
character of the free negro solely by that portion of his 
class which wandered through the State without work. In 
view of the various conflicting assertions, we are led to 
give credence to the recollections of respectable free ne- 
groes still living who insist on dividing this class on a moral 
as well as a social basis into two sections, the upper one 
of which was thoroughly respectable, law-abiding and 
prosperous; while to the lower element properly belongs 
the reputation of being associates and corrupters of slaves, 
and parasites on the community in which they lived. Per- 
sons of the former class were designated as "men of color," 
individuals of the latter as "free niggers." That the free 
negro class produced a rather disproportionate number of 
thieves should not be doubted, but that the free black was 
worse than the slave or that he was worse than so many 
whites would have been under similar circumstances is by 
no means proved. While not attempting to excuse him, still, 
in the words of Jefferson we well may say that "a man's 
moral sense must be unusually strong if slavery does not 
make of him a thief." And far from being of a turbulent 
and discontented disposition, as has been charged against 
him, the free negro "longed to be left alone in the place of 
his birth, free from fears of molestation and annoyance, to 
enjoy perfect content."* 

After surveying thus the conditions of the ante-bellum 
free negro in Virginia, the most striking thing of all seems 
to be the fact that his was termed "freedom," — that he 
should have been considered a free man. For what of 
freedom had he? He was neither a citizen of the State 
nor of the United States ; he supported the government by 
taxes and in the ranks of war, yet was refused suffrage and 
could not hold office ; he could neither be a juror nor bear 
witness against a white man, yet was liable to every police 



*Prof. T. R. Dew of William and Mary— "Essay on Slavery." 

107. 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

restriction of the law; he was "free," yet socially was 
forced to associate with servitude. Degraded as he was in 
morals, inclined by his environment toward criminality, 
still he was refused the privileges of education, — even 
religious gatherings being denied him time and time again. 
Hedged about by every restriction, shackled by the iron 
hand of prejudice, bearing the burdens yet refused the 
benefits of life, — the ante-bellum free negro merely existed, 
that was all. No wonder he was rated "Half a man." 



108 



ANTE-BELLUM FUN IN OLD VIRGINIA. 



ANTE-BELLUM FUN IN OLD VIRGINIA. 

By Geo. H. Gilmer, Jr. — 1916. 

How many of us have seen cartoons picturing the joke 
editor with an expression on his face rivalling that of an 
angry tiger or other ferocious beast? How often are we 
led to think that the man who writes for our amusement is 
in his manner exceedingly glum and gloomy. On the other 
hand, if we have not been led to believe him to be very 
gruff as pictured by the cartoonists, we are apt to think 
of him as a fat, jovial little fellow with a continual smile 
on his face like Santa Claus. This latter view which is 
usually the first to enter our minds is, in some respects, as 
unsatisfactory as the former. Has not some one truly said, 
"Man, thou pendulum 'twixt a smile and a tear"? If this 
is truly the nature of man, if he is indeed made up of 
emotions half sweet and half sad, is it not appropriate 
that the humorist should be a being of like emotion? It is 
improbable that a man who never knew any of the bitter 
of life could well judge of the sweet. If it were not for 
the contrasts of life, it would indeed be a monotonous busi- 
ness. What then shall we look for in a humorist? Xot a 
man made up altogether of smiles, never seeing the serious 
side of life, nor a man who sits at his desk during the day 
with a scowl on his face writing jokes for a living and 
sitting at home at night with the same scowl but never car- 
ing to brighten that home with his wit. Surely this is not 
what we would look for in our humorists. But we hope 
to find a man with a truly deep sympathy for the ills of 
human-kind, yet a man who can always look upon the 
bright side of life, a man bubbling over with fnn, but with 
plenty of room left for the tenderest sympathy for the woes 

111 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

of his fellow sufferers. Other nations and states have had 
such writers and it does our hearts good to read of them. 
Has Virginia, so famed for great leaders and great states- 
men, produced no one who has had the Heaven-given gift 
for cheering the despairing soul? You may go to any 
other state in the Union and you will not find more genuine 
happiness than in the Old Dominion. Could a people 
blessed with such a beautiful land and so much that con- 
tributes to real joy help furnishing some to the vast number 
of the world's humorists? 

Virginia has truly done her part in this line, not only 
in the past, but is doing so at present. Yet if we compare 
the present with the days just before the struggle for 
states' rights, there seems to be something lacking. We 
miss some of the real fun and joy that our grandfathers 
and great-grandfathers enjoyed. And we are never more 
aware of the fact that something has passed away than 
when we read of the good old ante-bellum days as pictured 
by Dr. George W. Bagby. Virginia, and the South as a 
matter of fact, can find no writer who more faithfully 
portrayed the life of his state than did Dr. Bagby. While 
he regarded all that was akin to suffering on the part of 
anyone with the deepest sympathy, there was within him 
that power for looking on the bright side of things and 
making the moments fly happily for all, which is one of the 
greatest blessings that man can possess. Were it not for 
him we would miss many a story of gladness from our 
Southern literature. Were it not for him much of the real 
joy of living in the ante-bellum days would be missed by us 
who have passed our lives without once experiencing the 
fun of living on an old Virginia Plantation. The person 
who has been fishing with Mozis Addums and Billy Ivins 
on the Appomattox, or who has not ridden with Mozis on 
the "cars" from "Fomville" to Kichmond and Washington 
or ridden through the mountains of Southwest Virginia, 
swimming rivers, and skating on the James at Lynchburg, 
one who has not visited the home of the Old Virginia Gen- 

112 



ANTE-BELLUM FUN IN OLD VIRGINIA 

tleman on his large plantation, has not by any means a 
complete education, and if he thinks that the present is in 
all respects more delightful to live in than the past, let him 
read and consider whether he may not be mistaken. 

We may think that a seven mile spin in a Ford over a 
macadam road is a pleasure that can only be excelled by a 
longer spin in a Cadillac. But what about the drive from 
Farmville to Uncle Flatback's plantation over a muddy 
road in a carry-all which brushes the limbs of the pine 
trees as it sinks into the ruts? Who would ever call this 
dreary ride through pine forests a pleasure? Why, Mozis 
Addums of course, and you would too if you could ever 
try it. It is true that it is lonesome, but it is a grand 
lonesomeness and all the tall oaks and pines are there 
whispering to you. You have just as much time as you 
want to think of all that awaits you at the end of your 
journey. You drive for miles without seeing a sign of a 
house, yet you know that* 'way back up in the woods there 
awaits your arrival the roomy old-fashioned (new-fash- 
ioned at the time you are taking the trip ) plantation house 
surrounded by the negro cabins and other buildings. There 
are still the silent forests on either side of it. But it is 
not dead looking. There are signs of life everywhere about 
the house. In some of the cleared fields in front of it the 
negroes are reaping the wheat, for it is harvest time. There 
are no noisy reapers or binders in the field, but the swish- 
swish of the cradle as it passes through the grain may be 
accompanied by the songs of the reapers. Some of the 
boys may be in the field helping with the work or they may 
be on horses looking on. Everyone has something to do. 

But we have not gone inside the house yet. It is a 
queer building, all patched up as if it had been built as 
the family grew, as indeed, it had. No two rooms have 
their floors on a level. You must either step up or step 
down or take the consequences of your failure to do so. 

You may be met by some of the older boys (there are 
boys and girls from the ages of two to sixty living in the 

113 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

house), and the negro driver will take the horse to the 
stable. If you are not too tired you might go hunting in 
the afternoon with the boys. There are no game laws and 
the broad fields and forests furnish a very nke place for 
birds and rabbits and even deer to live. When you come 
in at dark you are ready for the supper that has been 
prepared for you by the mother and her daughters. After 
supper you have a chance to learn something of the char- 
acter of this mother and her daughters. The latter are 
full of fun and also full of sincerity and all that you 
could desire. It is not many days before you will have to 
guard your heart carefully if you wish to retain it whole. 
The short summer evenings seem all too short when you 
are pleasantly passing the time talking to the one whom 
you for some reason have grown to like best, At ten 
o'clock you are sent to sleep with other boys of your age 
in the Office and it is more than irritating when they insist 
upon talking about horses when you are simply crazy to 
think with yourself of that last look she gave you before 
she mounted the stairs. Loving then must have been 
different from what it is now. One could not complain 
about the high cost of living in those days and at the same 
time what joy it was. For you were spending a fortnight 
in the very house with her. And yet how terrible was the 
suspense when she would mischievously call you "smarty" 
when you told her about your love, only to give you a 
sweeter smile than ever that evening when she said good- 
night. You were held in rapturous suspense and all the 
time you were in the midst of the highest joy. 

The mother had something about her that made her 
more to be admired even than her daughter. Such a quiet 
dignity and love has seldom since been seen in mothers 
outside of Virginia. 

Uncle Flatback himself was a kind, jolly old gentle- 
man. Others have often tried to portray the Old Virginia 
Gentleman, but few with the success of Dr. Bagby. The 
Virginia gentleman as seen by him is a quiet, yet spirited 

114 



ANTE-BELLUM FUN IN OLD VIRGINIA 

man; courteous and gentle, and of a "humility born only, 
as my experience teaches, of a devout Christian spirit." 

Can anyone read "The Old Virginia Gentleman" and 
deny that it was joy indeed to live in those days before the 
war. Trouble there was indeed, but with it was a spirit 
which triumphed over all sorrow and made life a blessing. 

What about a little fishing trip with a congenial crowd 
on the Appomattox? Fishing in those days was not 
exactly what it is now. Then there was the stately old 
beech which hung out over the waters of the Appomattox 
and admired its own reflection. It had to have an abund- 
ance of roots to support its weight and these roots fur- 
nished an excellent nest for the fisherman. The party set 
out for this beech and after walking a few miles baited 
their hooks and cast them into the water. Everybody tries 
to keep quiet but Billy Ivins finds it impossible to do so. 
The disgraceful raid upon Virginia by John Brown is 
fresh in the minds of the fishermen and they spend some 
time in heartily consigning him and others to a fit place 
of abode. It seems to relieve them somewhat for with this 
off their minds they fish in quiet and the suckers, some 
twelve and some eighteen inches long, very Obligingly bite 
well. At noon dinner is brought by someone from the 
plantation house. Such a day's fishing could not now be 
enjoyed when Ave are all too busy going into the towns or 
rushing through life as if our lives depended upon it. 

In the letters of Mozis Addums to Billy Ivins we are 
made to laugh heartily at the travels of the unsophisticated 
countryman. Virginia people of the period just before 
the war could well appreciate broad farce. Can we read 
these letters and deny that the Ante-Bellum South had as 
keen a sense of humor as the Post-Bellum nation at large? 
In reading them one would be forced to admit that there 
was as much if riot more "Sunshine" in the South as in 
the North during the same period. Those were the days 
when Virginians lived in leisure, not carried along by the 
swift, bustling spirit of present day Americans. If wo 

115 



STUDIES OF THE OLD SOUTH 

were given our choice as to whether we would live in our 
modern city or on the old plantation, there could be little 
choice. No one denies that there is fun in Virginia now, 
and fun in abundance, but there is a sadness connected with 
the passing of that quiet, peaceful fun that was formerly 
enjoyed on the Old Virginia Plantation in the days before 
Mars had left his blight upon the land. And we may say 
with one of her truest sons who appreciated the joy of 
living within her territory : "Virginia, our Mother, our 
own Mother, if we forget thee — if we ever forget thee — 
may our souls be forgotten of their God." 



116 



<fc, 



